Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "The Lord of glory; a study of the designations of Our Lord in the New Testament with especial reference to His deity"

See other formats


£vbrar;p of Che Cheolo^ical ^etnmar^ 

PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
PRESENTED BY 

Mrs. John D, Davis 



r BT 590 .N2 W2 c.T ^ 

Warfield, Benjamin 
Breckinridge, 1851-1921. 
The Lord of glory 








THE LORD OF GLORY 



The Lord of G! 



A STUDY OF 


THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN 
THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH 
ESPECIAL REFERENCE 
TO HIS DEITY 


BENJAMIN B. ‘WARFIELD 


Professor in Princeton Theological Seminary 


1907 


AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 

150 Nassau Street New York 


Copyright, 1907, by 
AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


To 


William Park Armstrong, Jr. 
Caspar Wistar Hodge, Jr. 


M Ad H TAIN ■ irNEPFOIN ■ AIAAIKAAOIN 
lYNAOrAOIN OMOWrXOIN 
XAPIN EXQN. 


Plurima quasivi, per singula quaque cucurri, 
Sed nihil inveni melius quam credere Christo, 

— Paulinus of Nola. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introductory . . . . . . • i 

Pervasive Witness of the N. T. to Christ, i — 

Scope of this Discussion, 2 — Designations of our 
Lord in the Synoptic Gospels, 3 — Starting Point 
of the Survey, 4. 

The Designations of our Lord in Mark . 5 

Narrative Designation, 5 — Popular Designation, 

6 — Formulas of Address, 6 — Significance of 

‘ Teacher ’, 8 — Significance of ‘ Lord ’, 9 — Mes- 
sianic Designations, 12 — Jesus Christ 14 — 

‘The Christ’, 15 — Anarthrous ‘Christ’, 16 — 

Royal Titles, 17 — ‘ Son of God ’, 19 — ‘ The Son 
21 — Our Lord’s Own Testimony to His Messiah- 
ship, 23 — '‘ Son of Man ’, 25 — Usage of ‘ Son of 
Man ’, 28 — Meaning of ‘ Son of Man ’, 29. 

Mark’s Conception of our Lord . . 32 

A Divine Intervention in Christ, 32 — Christ’s Life 
Thoroughly Supernatural, 33 — Jesus the Messiah, 

34 — Jesus’ Person Enhances His Designations, 

36 — Jesus a Superangelic Person, 36 — Jesus of 
Heavenly Origin, 38 — Jesus’ Earthly Life a 
Mission, 39 — Jesus’ Functions Divine, 41 — ^The 
Uniqueness of Jesus’ Sonship, 42 — Jesus As- 
similated to Jehovah, 45 — Jesus Identified with 
Jehovah, 47 — Mark’s Method, 50 — Mark’s Silence, 

51 — Mark’s Conception of the Messiahship, 53. 

The Designations of our Lord in Matthew 57 

The Narrative Name, and Exceptions, 57 — 

‘ Christ ’ as a Proper Name, 59 — Why so Seldom 
Used, 62 — Jesus’ Popular Name, 63 — Early Use 
vii 


Contents 


PAGE 


vlli 


of ‘ Christ ’ as a Proper Name, 64 — Simple Hon- 
orific Addresses, 66 — ‘ Master of the House ’ 68 — 
‘ Lord ’ as an Address, 69 — ‘ Lord ’ as an Appel- 
lation, 72 — Messianic Titles, 73 — Our Lord’s 
Own Messianic Claims, 74 — The Simple Messi- 
anic Designations, 76 — Meaning of ‘the Son of 
God ’1 78 — Culminating Assertions, 81 — Less Com- 
mon Messianic Titles, 83 — ‘ The Son of Man 84 
— The High Meaning of ‘ Son of Man 87. 


Matthew’s Conception of our Lord . 89 

Profundity of Matthew’s Suggestiveness, 89 — Rich- 
ness of His Implications, 91 — Assimilation of Jesus 
with God, 92 — Identification of Jesus with God, 

93 — Participation of Jesus in the Name, 94. 


The Designations of our Lord in Luke 

AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS . . • 97 

The Narrative Designations, 97 — Ordinary Forms 
of Address, 99 — ‘ Master ’, 100 — ‘ Lord ’ as an 
Address, lOi — ‘ Lord ’ as an Appellative, 102 — 
Significance of ‘ Lord ’, 104 — The ‘ Prophet 

106 — ‘ Saviour 107 — ‘ The Lord’s Christ ’,109 — 

‘The King’, 1 12— ‘God’s Elect’, 1 13— ‘God’s 
Holy One’, 113 — Meaning of ‘Holy’, 115 — 

‘ The Son ’, 117 — ‘ The Son of Man ’, 119 — ^Jesus’ 
Mission, 122 — The ‘ Bridegroom ’, 123. 

The Jesus of the Sy.noptists . . .. 125 

Variety of Titles Used, 125 — Extent of Jewish 
Use, 126 — Old Testament Foundation, 127 — 

Jesus’ Messianic Claims, 128 — Divergence from 
Current Expectations, 129 — ^Transfigured Con- 
ception of Messiah, 13 1 — Highest Designations, 

133 — Meaning of ‘ Son of Man ’, 135 — Meaning 
of ‘Son of God’, 137 — Meaning of ‘Lord’, 

140 — Synoptical Christ Divine, 145. 


Contents 

The Jesus of the Synoptists the Primitive 

Jesus ...... 

Significance of Synoptical Testimony, 146 — Date 
of the Synoptics, 146 — Earlier Documentary Basis, 
147 — The Sources of the Synoptics, 148 — Chris- 
tology of the Primitive Mark, 149 — Other Possible 
Elements in the Primitive Mark, 152 — Christology 
of the ‘ Primitive Sayings’, 153 — Resort to ‘ His- 
torical Criticism’, 155 — The Reportorial Element 
in the Gospels, 156 — Trustworthiness of the Evan- 
gelical Report, 157 — Faith the Foe of Fact, 158 — 
Primary Canon of Criticism, 159 — Futility of This 
Canon, 162 — Can We Save Any Jesus at all? 
163 — Jesus Certainly Claimed to be Messiah and 
‘ Son of Man ’, 166 — Jesus Certainly Claimed to 
be Superangelic, 168 — And God, 169 — The 

Synoptic Jesus the Real Jesus, 171. 

The Designations of our Lord in John and 
THEIR Significance .... 

Same Christology in Synoptics and John, 174 — 
Differences in Method, 175 — The Prologue of 
John, 177 — Jesus’ Narrative Name in John, 179 — 
Jesus’ Popular Designations, 180 — Formulas of 
Address, 180 — ‘ Lord ’, 181 — Jesus the ‘ Christ 
182 — Jesus’ Own Use of ‘ Jesus Christ ’, 184 — 
Jesus’ Relation to God, 186 — King ’, 189 — 

Accumulation of Titles, 189 — ^Jesus’ Mission, 
190 — The ‘ Lamb of God ’, 192 — Figurative Des- 
ignations, 193 — ‘ Son of Man ’, 194 — ‘ Son of 
God ’, 195 — ‘ Son ’, 196 — Eternal Sonship, 198 — 
‘ God ’, 199 — ‘ God ’, no New Title, 200. 

The Designations of our Lord in Acts and 
THEIR Significance .... 

Value of Acts’ Testimony, 202 — ‘ Jesus ’ in Acts, 
203 — ‘ Jesus of Nazareth ’, 204 — ‘ Jesus Christ ’, 

205 — ‘ Christ Jesus ’, 205 — ‘ The Lord Jesus ’, 

206 — ‘ Lord 207 — ‘ Lord ’ as Narrative Name, 


Ix 

PAGE 

146 


174 


202 


X 


Contents 


PAGE 


209 — ‘ Son of Man 212 — ‘ Son of God 2 13 — 

Prevalence of ‘ Christ 214 — Accumulation of 

Titles, 216 — ‘The Name’, 218. 

The Corroboration of the Epistles of 

Paul ...... 220 

Relative Early Date of Paul’s Letters, 220 — ^The 
Value of their Testimony, 221 — Constant Use of 
‘ Lord ’, 222 — Ground of Jesus’ Lordship, 223 — 

‘ Lord ’ a Proper Name of Jesus, 226 — Jesus Em- 
braced in the One Godhead, 228 — ^Trinitarian 
Background, 229 — ‘ Lord ’ the Trinitarian Name 
of Jesus, 231 — Appearance of Subordination, 232 — 

Its Impossibility with Paul, 234 — Implication of 
Term ‘ Lord ’, 236 — Subordination is Humilia- 
tion, 237 — Designations Compounded with ‘ Lord 
238 — Christ ’ Paul’s Favorite Designation, 241 — 

‘ Christ Jesus ’, 242 — Jesus the ‘ Saviour ’, 244 — 

‘ The Great God ’, 245 — ‘ The Beloved ’, 245 — 

Jesus the ‘ Man ’, 247 — But not Merely Man, 

248 — The Two Sides of Christ’s Being, 249 — ‘ Son 
of God’, 251 — God ‘the Father’, 252 — Christ 
All that God Is, 254 — Paul’s Jesus the Primitive 
Jesus, 255 — Inaccessibility to Critical Doubts, 

258 — No Substantial Development, 260. 

The Witness of the Catholic Epistles . 262 

Catholic Epistles Corroborative, 262 — James’ and 
Jude’s Christology High, 263 — Christ ‘ the Glory 
264 — Christ ‘ the Despot ’, 266 — Christology of i 
Peter, 266 — 2 Peter and the Deity of Our Lord, 

268 — John’s Epistles and ‘ the Son of God ’, 270 — 

Jesus the ‘ True God ’, 272 — How Our Lord’s 
Companions Thought of Him, 274. 

The Witness of the Epistle to the He- 
brews ...... 276 

Prevalence of ‘ Christ ’, 276 — Recognition of Jesus’ 
Humanity, 277 — What ‘ the Son ’ is, 278 — ^His 
Deity, 280 — Soteriological Titles, 282 — Christ our 
Priest, 284. 


Contents 


XI 


PAGE 

The Witness of the Apocalypse r. . 286 

A Summary View of Early Conceptions, 286 — 

Two Classes of Designations, 287 — Simple Des- 
ignations, 287 — Descriptive Designations, 290 — 

‘ The Lamb ’, 290 — Accumulative Designations, 

292 — The Deity of Our Lord, 294 — Trinitarian 
Background, 296. 

The Issue of the Investigation . .298 

Fundamental Conviction of the Christian Commu- 
nity, 298 — This Conviction Presupposes our Lord’s 
Teaching, 299 — And Something More than His 
Teaching, 300 — Including Something Very Con- 
clusive, 301 — Not Supposable that Jesus Made 
False Claims, 302 — The Issue the Sufficient Evi- 
dence of the Source, 303. 

Indexes ....... 305 

Index of the Designations of Our Lord, 307 — Index 
of the Passages of Scripture Cited, 312 — Index of 
Names Cited, 330. 


This man so cured regards the curer, then, 

As — God forgive me! — who hut God Himself, 
Creator and sustainer of the world. 

That came and dwelt on it awhile! .... 

And must have so avouched himself in fact, 

The very God! think Ahib; dost thou think? 

— Robert Browning. 


THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


They . . . crucified the Lord of Glory. 

— I Corinthians ii. 8. 

Who is this King of Glory? 

The LORD of hosts, 

He is the King of Glory. 

— Psalm xxiv. lo. 


THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD 

The proper subject of the New Testament is Christ. 
Every page of it, or perhaps we might better say 
Pervasive every line of it, has its place in the por- 
Witness of N. T. trait which is drawn of Him by the 
to Christ whole. In forming an estimate of the 
conception of His person entertained by its writers, 
and by those represented by them, we cannot neglect 
any part of its contents. We can scarcely avoid dis- 
tinguishing in it, to be sure, between what we may 
call the primary and the subsidiary evidence it bears 
to the nature of His personality, or at least the more 
direct and the more incidental evidence. It may very 
well be, however, that what we call the subsidiary or 
incidental evidence may be quite as convincing, if not 
quite as important, as the primary and direct evidence. 
The late Dr. R. W. Dale found the most impressive 
proofs that the Apostles themselves and the primitive 
Churches believed that Jesus was one with God, rather 
in the way this seems everywhere taken for granted, 
than in the texts in which it is definitely asserted. “ Such 
texts,” he remarks, “ are but like the sparkling crys- 
tals which appear on the sand after the tide has re- 
treated; these are not the strongest — though they may 
be the most apparent — proofs that the sea is salt: 
the salt is present in solution in every bucket of sea- 
water. And so,” he applies his parable, “ the truth 
of our Lord’s divinity is present in solution in whole 


2 The Designations of Our Lord 

pages of the Epistles, from which not a single text 
could be quoted that explicitly declares it.”^ 

We need offer no apology, therefore, for inviting 
somewhat extended attention to one of the subsidiary 
Scope of evidence of the estimate put 

of this upon our Lord’s person by the wTiters 
Discussion New Testament and by our Lord 

as reported by them. We certainly shall not, by so 
doing, obtain anything like a complete view of the 
New Testament’s evidence for the dignity of His 
person. But it may very well be that we shall obtain 
a convincing body of evidence for it. What we pur- 
pose to do is to attend with some closeness to the 
designations which the New Testament writers apply 
to our Lord as they currently speak of Him. These 
designations will be passed rapidly under our eye with 
a twofold end in view. On the one hand we shall 
hope, generally, to acquire a vivid sense of the atti- 
tude, intellectual and emotional, sustained by the sev- 
- eral writers of the New Testament, and by the New 
Testament as a whole, to our Lord’s person. On the 
other, we shall hope, particularly, to reach a clearer 
notion of the loftiness of the estimate placed upon His 
person by these writers, and by those whom they rep- 
resent. We are entering, then, in part upon an exposi- 
tion, in part upon an argument. We wish to learn, 
so far as the designations applied to our Lord in the 
New Testament are fitted to reveal that to us, how 
the writers of the New Testament were accustomed 
to think of Jesus; we wish to show that they thought 
of Him above everything else as a Divine Person. For 
the former purpose we desire to pass in review the 
whole body of designations employed in the New Tes- 

1 Christian Doctrine, 1895, p. 87. 


Introductory 3 

tament of our Lord; for the latter purpose, in pass- 
ing this material in review, we desire to order it in 
such a manner as to bring into clear relief its testimony 
to the profound conviction cherished by our Lord’s 
first followers that He was of divine origin and na- 
ture. In prosecuting our exposition we shall seek to 
run cursorily through the entire New Testament; in 
framing our argument we shall lay primary stress on 
the Gospels, or rather on the Synoptic Gospels, and 
adduce the remaining books chiefly as corroborative 
and elucidative testimony to what we shall find In 
the evangelical narratives. Thus we hope to take at 
once a wide or even a complete view of the whole field, 
and to throw into prominence the unitary presupposi- 
tion by the entire New Testament of the deity of our 
Lord. 

We turn, then, first to the Gospels, and in the first 
Instance to the Synoptic Gospels. We observe at once 

Designations ^ designa- 

of Our Lord tions they apply to our Lord fall into 
in the three general classes. They seem to be 
Synoptic Gospels purely il esign^tory, generally hon- 

■ Orific , or specifically Messianic. Of all purely designa- 
tory designations, the personal name is the most natural 
and direct. We can feel no surprise, therefore, to learn 
that our Lord is spoken of in the Gospels most com- 
monly by the simple name of ‘ Jesus.’ Nor shall we 
feel surprise to learn that the simplest honorific titles 
are represented as those most frequently employed in 
addressing Him, — ‘ Ra_bbi,’ with its Greek renderings, 
* Teacher ’ and ‘ Master,’ and its Greek representative, 
‘ Lord.’ No Messianic title again is more often met 
with In the narrative of the Gospels than the simple 


4 


The Designations of Our Lord 

‘ Christ,’ although on our Lord’s lips ‘ the Son of 
Man’ is constant. The general effect of the narrative 
on the reader, who passes rapidly through it, noting 
particularly the designations employed of our Lord, 
is a strong impression that (He is thought of by the 
V writers, and is represented by them as thought of by His 
vcontemporary followers and by Himself, as a person 
' of high dignity and unquestionable authority; and that 
this dignity and authority were rooted, both in their 
and in His estimation, in His Messianic character. If 
we are to take the designations employed in the Gos- 
pel narratives as our guide, therefore, we should say 
that the fundamental general fact which they suggest 
is that Jesus was esteemed by His first followers as 
the promised Messiah, and was looked upon with 
reverence and accorded supreme authority as such. 
Whether this impression is fully justified by the evi- 
' dence when it is narrowly scrutinized; and if so what 
the complete significance of the fact so established is; 
and whether more than appears upon the surface of 
it is really contained in the fact — these are matters 
which must be left to a closer examination of the de- 
tails to determine. 

In undertaking such a closer examination of the 
details, it will conduce not only to clearness of treat- 
starting ment, but also to surety of result, to 
Point of the take up the several Gospels separately. 
Survey perhaps it may be as well to begin 

with the Gospel of Mark. It is the briefest and in 
some respects the simplest and most direct narrative 
we have of the career of our Lord. It may be sup- 
posed, therefore, to present to us the elements of our 
problem in their least complicated shape. 


THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN 

MARK 


In Mark what we may call the narrative designation 
of our Lord is uniformly the simple ‘ Jesus.’^ Mark 

Narrative no Other designation In his 

Designation entire narrative.* On the other hand, 
he places this desigoation, In Its sim- 
plicity, In the mouth of no one else.® In the heading 
of his Gospel he sets, It Is true, that “ solemn designa- 
tion of the Messianic personality,” ‘ Jesus Christ.’ 
This Is a designation not only which occurs nowhere 
else In this Gospel,^ but which occurs elsewhere In the 
four Gospels only rarely and only In similar formal 
connections. It seems' already, here at least, to be 

occurs seventy-three times in Mark. In all these instances it 
has the article, except the first (i»), where the article is absent in 
accordance with the general rule that names of persons occur first 
without the article, and after that take it. 

2 In “Jesus Christ” occurs, but this is not in the narrative but in 
the heading of the book. “Jesus the Nazarene,” not the lan- 

guage of Mark but of the people, repeated by him. “Lord Jesus,” 
16^®, “Lord,” i 620 , are in the spurious closing paragraph. 

2 Unless the order in which the words stand in « xhou Son of 
David, Jesus,” and in 146^^ “That Nazarene, Jesus,” be thought to 
constitute an exception. The designation, ‘Jesus,’ occurs on the lips 
of others in such combinations as: 1^*, “Jesus, thou Nazarene”; 5’’, 
“Jesus, Son of the Most High God ”; lo^^, “Jesus, the Son of David ”; 
and also again, “Jesus, the Nazarene”; 1467, “Jesus, the Nazarene”; 
16®, “Jesus, the Nazarene.” 

* Cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar , p. 37. 

5 


6 


Popular 

Designation 


The Designations of Our Lord 

employed as a proper name.® But in the narrative 
itself, as we have intimated, Mark uses only the simple 
‘ Jesus,’ which nevertheless he never represents as 
used by others either in speaking of or in speaking to 
Jesus. 

The name by which Jesus was popularly known to 
His contemporaries, according to Mark, was appar- 
ently the fuller descriptive one of ‘ Jesus 
of Nazareth’ (lo^^ i6" 14"’').® On 
one occasion He is represented as ad- 
dressed by this full name and on two others 

by the name ‘ Jesus,’ enlarged by a Messianic title 
(‘Jesus, Son of the Most High God’ 5”^, ‘Jesus, Son 
of David’ 10^^). The inference would seem to be 
that ‘ Jesus ’ was too common a name’ to be sufficiently 
designatory until our Lord’s person had loomed so 
large, at least in the circles to which the Gospels were 
addressed, as to put all other Jesuses out of mind when 
this name was mentioned. The employment of the 
simple ‘ Jesus ’ as the narrative name in this Gospel 
is, therefore, an outgrowth of, and a testimony to, 
the supreme position He occupied in the minds of 
Christians. 

The formula by which Jesus is represented by Mark 
as ordinarily addressed is apparently the simple Jipn- 
orific ..title, ‘ Rabbi,’ by which in that 
age (Mt 23’) every professed teacher 
was courteously greeted.® The actual 

^ So, e.g., Meyer, Holtzmann, Wellhausen. 

® On the form NaXaprjv6<i see Swete, on Mark 

See Delitzsch, Der Jesusname in “ Zeitschr. f. d. luth. Theol.,” 1876, 
zo^seq., or Talmud. Stud., xv. ; and cf. Keim, Gescliichte Jesu, i, 384 
seq. 

* Cf. Westcott, on John 32. 


Formula of 
Address 


The Designations in Mark 7 

Aramaic form ‘ Rabbi ’ occurs, however, but seldom 
in his narrative, and only on the lips of Jesus’ disciples 
(9^ ii^^; 14^^, Judas In betraying Him) ; although the 
parallel form ‘ RabbonI ’ occurs once on the lips of 
a petitioner for healing (10^^). In Its place stands 
customarily Its simplest and most usual Greek ren- 
dering, ‘Teacher’ {dc^daxah) The general synon- 
omy of the forms of address, ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Master,’ 
‘Lord’ (dcddaxah, iTzcardra, x 6 p:s) ^ as all alike 
Greek representatives of ‘ Rabbi,’ is fully established 
by a comparison of the parallel passages in the 
Synoptics, as well as by such defining passages as Jno 

l38 

What is to be noted here is that in his re- 
port of the forms of address employed by those con- 
versing with Jesus, Mark confines himself among 
Greek formulas to ‘Teacher’ (diddaxah) as his 
standing representation of ‘ Rabbi.’ The use of 
‘Lord’ (xupis) in 7“® is not strictly an exception to 
this, since the speaker on that occasion was a heathen, 
and ‘ Lord ’ {xupce') may be best viewed as Indica- 
tive of this fact. It Is the common Greek honorific 
address, equivalent In significance to the Jewish 
‘ Rabbi ’ or ‘ Teacher.’^^ 

The address ‘Teacher’^** is used by Mark broadly, 
and Is put upon the lips both of our Lord’s disciples 

9 See esp. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, xiv., E. T., pp. zi'^seq. 

Cf. Swete, on Mark 4^®; Dalman, 327, 336. 

Cf. Wellhausen, in loc.: “ The address xopis is found in Mark 
only in this passage, in the mouth of a heathen woman.” Swete goes 
astray here in paraphrasing, “ True, Rabbi,” — “ Rabbi ” is out of 
place. 

The rendering of oidd<rxaho^ (after the Vulgate, M agister) 
by “Master” is, as Westcott remarks (on John 3^), “apt to suggest 


8 The Designations of Our Lord 

in their ordinary colloquy (4^® 9'^® 10^^ 13^)) obviously 
as their customary form of addressing 
Sigmficance^ Him; and of others who approached 
H im for every variety of reason (5^“ 9^”^ 
io 17 , 2 o ^ There does not necessarily lie in this 

mode of address, therefore, anything more than a 
general polite recognition of our Lord’s claim to be a 
teacher and leader of men, although of course this 
recognition may rise on occasion above mere courtesy 
and become the expression of real reverence and de- 
pendence and a recognition of His authority and sov- 
ereignty. When something like this was Insincerely 
or frivolously expressed, our Lord was offended by It, 
as in the case of the rich young ruler who addressed 
Him flatteringly as ‘Good Teacher’ (10^’^).^^ But 
when the expression was sincere It was received by 
Jesus In good part and the recognition of His authority 
involved In It welcomed and responded to, even when 
the authority suggested far exceeded that of an ordi- 
nary Rabbi and involved at least Messianic claims 
(io35 ^38 488^^ accept this designa- 

tion; He even adopts It, instructing His disciples to 
speak of Him to others as ‘the Teacher’ (14^^), — 
and there Is Involved perhaps In this adoption of the 
title all that Is expressed in the declarations of Mt 
23^'^^. Although not necessarily recognized as all that 
He was by every one who approached Him saying 
‘ Teacher,’ yet under this designation He certainly is 

false associations.” Yet the implication of authority is present in it; 
and that might be missed in rendering it ‘Teacher’; cf. Schoettgen, 
Hor. Hebr. on Mt lo^®, Jno 15^% Gal 

Dalman, p. 337: “This address was at variance with actual usage, 
and moreover in the mouth of the speaker, it was mere insolent flat- 
tery.” Cf. Swete in loc.: but see also Alexander and Weiss-Meyer. 


9 


The Designations in Mark 

recognized as claiming and certainly does claim an 
authority above that of those who shared the title of 
‘Teacher’ with Him (1^2.27 etc.). 

Similarly we are not quite at the end of the matter 
when we say that the heathen woman in addressing 
Him as ‘Lord’ (7-^) only makes use 
^igmfica^ce common Greek honorific address. 

When one comes to a religious teacher 
petitioning so great a benefit, the honorific title which 
is employed is apt to be charged with a far richer 
meaning than mere courtesy or respect. And Jesus 
received it in this case at its full value; in a sense 
bearing some relation to His own appellative use of 
the same term, ‘ Lord ’ ( x6pco (; ) , when He declared 
Himself ‘ Lord of the Sabbath ’ and ‘ David’s Lord ’ 
as well as his ‘ Son ’ (2^® . It is in this ^.pella- 

tive^ use of the term ‘ Lord ’ by Jesus indeed that we may 
discover the deepest significance of the application of 
that title to Him (T 2^^ iT 12^®’^^ [12® 13^^] )• 
is no doubt sometimes very difficult to determine 
whether in a given instance it refers to God or to Jesus^*, 
a fact which has its significance. But the certain cases 
will themselves carry us very far. When, for example, 
Jesus is quoted as declaring that “ the Son of Man is 
Lord even of the Sabbath ” (or, perhaps, “ of the Sab- 
bath, too”), the implication is that He is Lord of. 
much more than the Sabbath, and that this His Lord- 
ship is an appanage of His Messianic dignity.^® And 

i^This matter is carefully investigated by Sven Herner, Die An- 
nuendung des JVortes xoptog im N. T., 1903, pp. 7-9, with the result 
that he assigns 2^8 728 n3 1288.37^ and also possibly but not prob- 
ably 5I8, to Jesus. 

So Weiss-Meyer : “The conclusion rests ... on the vocation 
of the Son of Man, as bringing the highest blessing to man, to control 




10 


The Designations of Our Lord 

when He is represented as arguing with the scribes 
over the significance of the title ‘ Son of David ’ 
( 1 236,37)^ it cannot be doubted that He had Himself 
as the Messiah in mind; and, whatever else His words 
suggest, they certainly Intimate that He held Himself 
as the Messiah to be greater than David as truly as 
^ He was greater than Solomon (Mt 12^^) ; that, in 
a word, David (as that prophetic monarch himself 
recognized) was no more His father by virtue of His 
descent from him, than he was His servant by virtue 
of his essential relation to HImd® He was at the very 
least, and was predicted by David himself as, David’s 
sovereign. 

Such being the conception of His lordship which 
was In His mind, we must assume It was this lofty 
dignity which He claimed for Himself when He 
instructed His disciples, whom He sent to bring Him 
the ass’s colt which was to bear Him into Jerusalem, 
to tell those who might dispute their right to It, that 
“the Lord hath need of him” and this is 

borne out by the strongly Messianic character of the 
whole transaction (verses 9, 10, cf. Mt 2i^’^ Jno 
1214 , 15 ) 17 ^j2d surely some such Implications attend 


everything that has been arranged for man’s blessedness, and there- 
fore also the Sabbath.” Wellhausen perceives that the passage as it 
stands imports that such authority can be exercised only by the Mes- 
siah. Cf. Holtzmann. 

Cf. Alexander, in loc.: “The person thus described, as the supe- 
rior and sovereign of David and his house and of all Israel, could not 
^ possibly be David himself, nor any of his sons and successors except 
one who by virtue of his twofold nature was at once his sovereign 
and his son . . also Meyer, in loc., whom, however, Weiss seeks 

to correct (cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, 249, and N, T, The- 
ologie, I. 243). 

11' Wellhausen remarks in loc.: ** 6 xupto? is purposely meant to 
sound mvsterious ! Tesus does not elsewhere so desie^nate Himself, nor 


The Designations In Mark ii 

also the semi-parabolIc designation of Himself as the 
‘ Lord of the House ’ whose coming Is to be watched 
for (13'"^^). And at least as much as this Is Involved 
when the evangelist Identifies Him with ‘ the Lord ’ 
wLose way was to be made ready for Him by the 
ministry of John the Baptist In fulfillment of the 
prophetic declar ation s of Isaiah and Malachl (i^); 
for the^lteratlons In the language of tKe~ 3 Sa rations 
introduced by the evangelist make clear his purpose to 
apply these phrases directly to Jesusd® 

It is not necessary to presuppose that ‘ Rabbi ’ un- 
derlies this appellative use of ‘ Lord ’ (xopcot;). In 
Mark 12^^ (and probably also i^) the underlying term 
is Adhojil, and elsewhere it Is doubtless Mar an, or 
Marana (or Mara^a)P In other words the Implica- 
tions of the term in this application of it are those of 
supremacy and sovereignty. Whence it emerges that 
Jesus is represented as claiming for Himself (2^® 

1335 recognized within His own 

circle as possessing (ii^), supreme sovereignty, — a 
sovereignty superior to that of the typical king himself 

is He so named by His disciples or by the narrator.” But this Is surely 
hypercritical in the presence of 2^8 and 12^®’^^. 

Cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, p. 55: “Instead of auroDat the 
end there stands rdh dsoo ijiitov in the Lxx. The change shows that 
the evangelist, by the xupto? of the first member, wished not God but 
the Messiah to be understood.” See also Sven Herner, Die Arisen- 
dung des JVortes xonto<; im N. T., p. 7: “Nor can there be any doubt 
that the citation, already known from Mt. 3® — ‘ Prepare ye the way 
of the Lord ’ — refers to Christ.” Mark has, he tells us, quoted, imme- 
diately before, the words found also in Mt with alterations from 
the O. T. text such as show they are intended by him to refer to 
Christ: and the connection necessarily demands that these now before 
us should also be referred to Christ (cf., p. 4). 

Cf. Dalman, /F ords, 328, and cf. 326. It must not be supposed, 
however, that ‘Rabbi’ might not be charged with a high significance 
Xcf. Dalman, p. 334). 


12 


The Designations of Our Lord 

( 1 , extending over the divinely ordained reli- 
gious enactments of the chosen people (7^^ cf. 
and entitling Him to dispose of the possessions (ii^) 
and the very destinies of men (13^^). There is here 
asserted not only Messianic dignity and authority, but 
dignity and authority which transcend those ordinarily 
attributed even to the Messiah (12^®’^'^), and are com- 
parable only to those of God Himself (i^). 

The transition from such a designation of Jesus as 
‘ Lord ’ to the designation of Him as ‘ Messiah,’ Is 
only a passage from the general to the 
Messianic particular. What is noteworthy Is, 
therefore, not that specifically Mes- 
sianic titles are freely assigned to Jesus In the narrative, 
but that no other titles than Messianic ones seem to 
be employed of Him. There Is indication Indeed that 
our Lord was recognized as a prophet (6^^ 8“®) ; In 
point of fact, that He recognized Himself as a prophet 
(6^). It Is clear indeed that He was widely spoken 
of as a prophet and that He Himself accepted the 
designation as appropriate.^® But this Is little empha- 
sized In this Gospel, and would form no exception to 
the rule that no designations are suggested for Jesus 
except Messianic titles. Neither can we consider the 
designations ‘Bridegroom’ and ‘Shepherd’ 

(14^^), which Jesus seems to have applied Incidentally 
to Himself, exceptions. In the former of these Jesus, 
discoursing of John the Baptist (2^^) doubtless with 
Intentional reference to a saying of his which is vt- 

20 See Swete’s note on 6 * : “ The Lord here assumes the role of the 
Prophet, which was generally conceded to Him (6^® 8^8, Mt 
Lk 24!^, Jno 4^9 6^^ 7^® 9^'^, Acts 3^2 737).” And compare Hastings’ 
Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, i, art. “ Foresight,” where the 
matter is examined. 


The Designations in Mark 13 

corded for us only in John (3^®), identified Himself 
on the one hand with the ' Bride groom ’ of Old Testa- 
ment prophecy (cf. Hos 2^^), and set Himself forth 
on the other as the HeacL-of- the people of God now to 
b e g athered into the promised kingdom: In other 
words, the designation Is_,M£SsianIc to the cgre.^^ And 
certainly not less Is to be said of His Identification of 
Himself with the mysterious ' Shepherd ' of Zech 13^ 
who Is the fellow of the Lord of Hosts (14^^ II Mt 
26^L* and cf. 6^^ |I Mt 9^®; and see Mt 25^^ eschato- 
loglcally; and Jno lo^). By the side of these It may 
also be necessary to recognize as a Messianic designa- 
tion, the epithet ‘ Beloved,’ which Is applied to Him 
In the divine commendations of the Son — “ Thou art 
my Son, the Beloved, In whom I am well pleased,” 
“This is my Son, the Beloved” 9'^).^^ But apart 
from these more unusual designations none are applied 
to Jesus In the whole course of the narrative by any 
of the characters Introduced, Including Jesus In His 
own person, but familiar Messianic titles. These occur 
In considerable variety, and Include not only the simple 
‘ Chnst ’ with Its equivalents, ‘ the King of Israel ’ or 
‘ of the Jews,’ and ‘ the Son of David,’ but also the 

21 Cf. Swete, in loc.: “ So the Lord identifies Himself with the Bride- 

groom of O. T. prophecy (Hos. 2-^, etc.), i.e. God in His covenant 
relation to Israel, a metaphor in the N. T. applied to the Christ (Mt 
25^, Jno Eph 528 sg, Apoc 19"^, etc.).” Christ is set forth Mes- 

sianically under the name of the Bridegroom in N. T. only in Mk 
219 , 19 , 20 ^ Mt 9I®, Lk 5^^, Jno 32^; and in the Parable of the Ten Vir- 
gins, Mt The thing occurs oftener. 

22 Cf. J. Armitage Robinson, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ii, 
501 (art. “Isaiah, Ascension of,” cf. Charles, The Ascension of 
Isaiah, I. 4), and St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 229-247 (Note on 
“'The Beloved’ as a Messianic title”). Dr. Robinson, however, does 
not assert that the title occurs in Mark, though he finds it in the par- 
allel passages in the other Synoptics. 


14 


The Designations of Our Lord 

more significant ones of ‘the Holy One of God ’ and 
‘ the Son of God/ — varied to ‘ the Son of the Most 
High God,’ and ‘ the Son of the Blessed,’ — and Jesus’ 
own chosen self-designation, ‘ the Son of Man.’ 

The evangelist himself nowhere in the course of 
his narrative speaks of Jesus by one of these titles. As 
we have seen, his narrative name of our Lord is ex- 
clusively the simple ‘ Jesus.’ No reader will doubt, 
however, that he considered all of them applicable to 
Jesus; and he announces his book, in the heading he 
has prefixed to it, as intended to recount the origins 
of “ the Gospel of Jesus Christ ” — possibly adding 
also the further Messianic designation of “ the Son 
of God.” This compound name ‘ Jesus Christ ’ 
occurs extremely rarely in the Gospels, 
‘Jesus Christ’ and never except in the most formal 
and cerernonious circums^nces.^® It 
appears, indeed, to be reserved as an august name, 
weighted with the implication of the entire content of 
Jesus’ claims, and therefore suitable only for setting 
at the head of documents designed to exhibit His life 
and work, or at the opening of accounts of significant 
periods or acts of His career. It is very fairly described 
by Holtzmann, therefore, as “ the solemn designation 
of the Messianic personality.”^^ Although in it the 

It appears only in the headings of Mt (i^) and Mk (i"^) and at 
the starting point of the narrative of Mt (i^®) and the new beginning 
made at Mt i6-^: and similarly in John only at the first mention of 
Jesus w'hich may be accounted the beginning of his narrative, 

and at the opening of the great sacerdotal prayer (17^)- It begins to 
be frequent in Acts {2^^ 3« 410 gi^dsT] lose io4S „i7 1526 1518 
20-^ 28^^) ; and in Paul it is very frequent. The contrary combina- 
tion, ‘Christ Jesus,’ does not occur at all in the Gospels: but appears 
occasionally in Acts (3-® [17^ 24-^) and in Paul very often. 

Hand-Corn., p. 37. 


The Designations in Mark 15 

term ‘ Christ ’ has ceased to be an appellation and be- 
come a portion of a proper name,^® its use as such bears 
all the stronger testimony to the ascription of the Mes- 
siahship to Jesus. Other Messiah than He had ceased 
to be contemplated as conceivable, and the very ap- 
pellation ‘ Messiah ’ had become His distinguishing 
name. 

Although this compound name occurs nowhere else 
In Mark, and the reverse combination, ‘ Christ Jesus,’ 
which is also in use in Acts and 

‘ The Christ ’ Paul, never, the simple ‘ Christ ’ ap- 
pears in his narrative with sufficient fre- 
quency to evince that it was a favorite designation of 
the Messiah (8“^ 12^^ 13"^ 14^^ 15^-), applied as such 
to Jesus (8“^ 14^^ 15^-) in order to mark Him out as 
the Messiah; and accepted as such by Jesus, who thus 
asserts Himself to be the Messiah ( 8 ^^ 14^“? 

13“^). Its significance, as the simplest of all Messianic 
titles. Is well brought out by the synonyms with which 
it Is coupled. When Peter assigned it to our Lord in 
his great confession (8~^), our Lord at once takes it 
up as the equivalent of His own favorite self-designa- 
tion of ‘ the Son of Man.’^® When our Lord would in- 
struct the scribes with respect to the real dignity of 
the Messiah, He asks them how they can speak of the 
Christ as ^ the Son of David,’ when David himself 

25 Wellhausen, on Mk i^: “But in ‘Jesus Christ,’ [Christ] has 

already become a part of a personal name and has therefore lost the 
article, — like Adam, Gen 5I.” Holtzmann, as cited: “The nomen pro- 
pr’ium ’Itj(7ou<s J(pi<7To^ ... in which the personal name Jesus 
. . . appears as the fore-name, the official name XpLGro<i as the sec- 

ond personal name.” 

26 Cf. also the parallels, Lk 920, “the Christ of God”; Mt 16I6, ‘‘the 
Christ, the Son of the living God.” 


1 6 The Designations of Our Lord 

calls Him his ‘ Lord ’ When the high-priest 

at His trial adjured Him to say whether He was ‘ the 
Christ, the Son of the Blessed,’ in His assenting reply 
He calls Himself the ‘ Son of Man ’ ( 14^-’®^) . And in 
like manner the scoffing Jews mockingly addressed Him 
as He hung on the cross as ‘ the Christ, the King of 
Israel’ (15^^). In all these instances the term is ob- 
viously used as an appellation, and has no different 
content from the general one common to all the desig- 
nations which impute Messiahship. It is the com- 
plete synonym of ‘the King of Israel’ (15^“), ‘the 
Son of David’ (12^^), ‘the Son of the Blessed’ 
(14®^), ‘the Son of Man’ (8^^ 14^^)- In a word it is 
the general title of the Messianic Sovereign, whom 
Jesus claims to be in His acceptance of this designation, 
and whom He is asserted to be by its application to 
Him by His followers. 

In the remarkable passage, 9^^ alone does ‘ Christ ’ 
appear without the article. And therefore it has been 
frequently supposed to be employed 
there not as an appellation but as a 
proper name, and therefore again to be 
out of place on Jesus’ lips and to be accordingly an 
intrusion into the text from the later point of view 
of His followers.^"^ There seems to be no reason, how- 
ever, why ‘Christ’ ^^en without the ar- 

ticle may not be taken appellatively^® (cf. Lk 23^) ; 

27 Dalman, Words, 305-6, explains the words “ that ye are Christ’s ” 
as an intrusion; on the ground that they are an unnecessary explana- 
tion of a [lou which is not genuine. Even Swete, in loc., following 
Hawkins, Hor. Syn., p. 122, is inclined to see here “ a later writer’s 
hand,” and Keil, like Dalman, affirms boldly that “ ort ^ptffroo iffri 
is an explanatory statement adjoined by Mark to dvopart fiou.” 

2® It is so understood here e.g. by Fritzsche and Meyer; and Delitzsch 
points out that sometimes ‘ Messiah ’ is used among the Jews them- 


The Designations in Mark 


17 


and in that case, no reason why our Lord may not have 
told His followers that no one who should do them a 
benefit “ in the name that they are the Christ’s,” i. e., 
on the ground that they are the servants of the Mes- 
siah, should lose his appropriate reward. In this view 
our Lord would no doubt be once again claiming for 
Himself the Messianic dignity; but He would not be 
doing it in language inappropriate upon His lips, espe- 
cially at a period in His ministry subsequent to the 
great confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi ( 8 ^^^), 
after which, we are expressly told Jesus began 

to teach both formally and quite openly what and 
who He was and what was to befall Him in the prose- 
cution of His mission. The thought thus brought out 
differs in nothing from that of Mt 10^^ and the mode 
of expressing the thought is equally appropriate with 
that recorded there, on the lips of One who knew Him- 
self to be Teacher and Lord only because He was the 
Christ. At the same time it must not be too easily 
assumed that our Lord could not speak of Himself as 
‘ Christ ’ taken even as a proper, or quasi-proper, name, 
although we need not dwell upon this at this point.^® 
It was because He announced Himself as the 
‘ Christ ’ and was widely understood to possess claims 
upon that dignity that, when He was 
arraigned before Pilate, it was precisely 
upon His pretensions to be ‘ the King 
of the Jews ’ that He was interrogated ( i . On 
Jewish lips this title naturally was corrected to ‘ the 

selves without the article — according to Dalman, however, only in 
the Babylonian Talmud {Words, p. 292). Dalman, loc. cit., says that 
anarthrous Xpiaror: occurs in the Synoptics only in the phrases ‘ Jesus 
Christ’ (Mt Mk 1^), ‘Jesus surnamed Christ’ (Mt 

‘Lord Christ’ (Lk 2II), ‘King Christ’ (Lk 232), and here. 

29 Cf. below, pp. 


Royal 

Titles 


1 8 The Designations of Our Lord 

King of Israel’ (15^'), which again is identified with 
* the appellation ‘ the Christ ’ (15^^). ' In this form also 
Jesus was far from repelling the Messianic ascription, 
but on the contrary expressly allows it (15^). To all 
appearance, however, neither ‘ the Christ,’ nor ‘ the 
King of Israel,’ was more current as a Messianic des- 
ignation than the kindred form ‘ the Son of David ’ 
(i2^^ cf. though this title appears in Mark’s 

narrative only once as actually applied to Jesus 
(io 47 , 48 )^ The blind man at the gates of Jericho, 
hearing that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by, and 
wishing to ask a favor at His hands as the expected 
King of Israel, knew no better name by which to ad- 
dress Him than ‘ Son of David.’ It was the faith 
thus expressed which Jesus commended in him when 
He responded to his appeal, — thus accepting this Mes- 
sianic title also ( cf. It is quite unten- 

able, therefore, to suppose that Jesus wished to repel 
this designation®^ in the question He put as He taught 
in the temple (12®^), “How say the scribes that the 
^ Christ is the son of David,” when “ David himself ” 
(and speaking “in the Holy Spirit”) “calls Him 
rather Lord? ” He does not deny that He is David’s 

Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, I. 243, speaks of It as “the most pop- 
ular and comprehensive of all the Messianic titles,” and supposes that 
the underlying Jewish feeling of Matthew shows Itself in the impor- 
tant role which he makes this folk-cry play in his Gospel (Mt 9^7 12-^ 

1 2 o 30>31 21O.I5 

31 So e.g. Wellhausen (as before him Strauss, Schenkel and others) : 
“ Jesus represents it as merely a notion of the scribes that the Messiah 
is the son of David, and refutes it by a statement of David’s own 
which proves the contrary. An incitement to enter upon this question 
He had only in case it concerned Himself. He held Himself for the 
Messiah, though He was not the son of David,” etc. Cf. on the con- 
trary the remarks in Dalman, Words, p. 286: also Meyer’s good note. 


The Designations in Mark 19 

son; He asserts that He is David’s Lord. It seems, 
therefore, not quite exact even to say that He wishes 
to suggest that His sonship derives from a higher 
source than David: that He is, in a word, the Son of 
God rather than of David.®^ But it seems clear that 
He desires to intimate that as Lord of David He was 
something far m.ore than was conveyed by the accus- 
tomed — and so far acceptable^^ — title of ‘ Son of 
David ’ and something of this higher dignity than 
mere kingship belonging to Him Is doubtless inherent In 
this, therefore, higher Messianic title of ‘ Son of God.’ 
This higher title, if It Is not applied to Jesus by 
Mark himself in the heading of his Gospel (i^). Is 
at least In the course of the narrative 
repeatedly represented as applied to 
Him by others, and Is expressly ap- 
proved as so applied not only by the evangelist (3^^), 
but by our Lord Himself (14®^). The form of the 
title varies from the simple ‘Son of God’ ([i^] 3^^, 
cf. 15^'^^) to the ‘Son of the Blessed’ (14®^) and the 
‘Son of the Most High God’ (5^). It Is, In the 
Instances recited by Mark, found chiefly on the lips of 
the unclean spirits whom Jesus cast out (3^^ 5^) ; 
though It Is employed also, apparently as a culmi- 
nating Messianic title, by the high priest at His trial, 

32 See Dalman, Words, 286 . 

33 Cf. Meyer’s good note E. T. Mark and Luke, i. 194 note. 

34 Dalman, arguing that what Jesus wished to suggest was that He 
was Son of God, not of David, goes on to urge that this implies a 
supernatural birth, and (though not the doctrine of the two natures) a 
nature which though “ appearing in human weakness, is yet a perfect 
revelation of God,” and fits Him for future rulership over the world. 
Swete remarks: “The title does not involve divine sovereignty; yet 
it was a natural inference that a descendant who was David’s Lord 
was also David’s God.” 


20 


The Designations of Our Lord 

seeking to obtain from Jesus an acknowledgment of 
His great pretensions (14®^), and was frankly accepted 
by our Lord as fairly setting these pretensions forth 
(14®^). As a Messianic title it differs from^hose 
which have been heretofore engaging our attention, in 
emphasizing, as they do not, the supernatural side of 
the office and functions of the Messiah: He comes as 
the representative of God to do God’s will in the world. 
From this point of view another Messianic title ap- 
plied to Him b_y a demoniac — ‘ the Holy One of God ’ 
(i 24 ), 35 — ranges with it: and the employment by 
the unclean spirits of this class of titles only (cf. 3^^ and 
may be due to the fact that they were voices 
from the spiritual world and were as such less 
concerned than the people of the land with national 
hopes or earthly developments.^® 

35 Westcott (on Jno 6 ®^) remarks: “The knowledge of the demo- 
niacs reached to the essential nature of the Lord ” (comparing Rev 
3“^, I Jno 2-^; and Jno and 6^'^). The expression, however, (which 
occurs only in Mk Lk 4^^, Jno 6®^) need not in itself, as Hahn 
(Lk 4 ^ 4 ) puts it, “refer to the moral purity of Jesus (Keil) ; but may 
express rather His Messianic dignity, designating Him as God’s con- 
secrated, dedicated One (cf. Jno Hahn adds that though the 

demon knows of the humble human origin of Jesus {Na^aprjvi) he 
nevertheless knows also of His divine appointment. Holtzmann (p. 
76) accords in general with Hahn, and points out that the demon 
speaks for his class (“us”). Wellhausen supposes this title to have 
been formed by transference to the Messiah of epithets at first appro- 
priated to Israel : “ Israel originally is both the Son of God and the 
Holy One of the Highest” (on Mk It seems, however, a little 

difficult to understand how the demons were supposed to recognize at 
sight (“as soon as ever they saw him”) an official appointment. Does 
it not seem that there must have been supposed to be something about 
Jesus which betrayed to an eye which saw beneath the surface His 
superhuman nature — whether this were thought of as His supreme holi- 
ness or as His unapproachable majesty? 

From his own point of view Wellhausen speaks (on i 25 . 26 ) of 
“the popular belief that the spirits have for the supersensual other 


21 


The Designations in Mark 

By the side of the passages in which the precise title 
‘ Son of God ’ is employed, there stands another series 
in which Jesus speaks of Himself, or 
‘The Son* is represented as spoken of by God, 
simply as ‘the Son’ (13^^, cf. 12®; 

9*^), used obviously in a very pregnant sense and 
these naturally suggest their correlatives in which He 
speaks of God as His ‘ Father ’ in the same pregnant 
manner (8^^, cf. 13^^ 14^^) • The uniqueness of the 
relation intended to be intimated by this mode of 
speech is sharply thrust forward in the parable recorded 
in Mark 12. There were many slaves who were sent 

eyes than flesh and blood,” and that these eyes were sharpened in the 
present case by their danger. This remark seems to imply that in the 
popular view “ the Holy One of God ” imported something more than 
divine appointment — something of superhuman nature or character. 
The sharpest eyes could scarcely discern appointment. 

37 On the strength of the difference between the precise phrase ‘ the 
Son of God’ and these phrases where Jesus is called God’s ‘Son’ or 
speaks of Himself as ‘ Son,’ it has become common to say Jesus does 
not use the title ‘Son of God.’ Thus e.g. Shailer Mathews, The 
Messianic Hope in the N. T., 1905, pp. 106-7: “Jesus Himself does 
not use the expression, although others use it with reference to Him. 
It is of course true that Jesus frequently speaks of God as ‘Father’ 

and of Himself as ‘ the Son,’ but this is quite another matter from 

speaking of Himself as 6 uid? too 6eou. . . . That Jesus spoke of 

God as His Father in some unique sense cannot be denied, but such 

sayings as imply this do not employ either 6 olds' too Oeoo or olds 
Dr. Mathews in a note refers to Jno lo^® ii^, but hesitates to 
speak of these as exceptions because of the possibility that John may 
have substituted here “ a term expressive of his own estimate of Jesus 
for the word which Jesus used Himself.” He might have pointed 
also not only to the general implication of Jesus’ acceptance of the title 
when applied to Him by the demons and others, but to His express 
acceptance of it at Mk 14®^, and we may add at Mt i 67 ®, though Dr. 
Mathews would not allow this instance. Nor is it so very clear that 
the ‘ Son of God,’ ‘ God’s Son,’ ‘ the Son,’ are not closely related to one 
another as Messianic titles. 


22 


The Designations of Our Lord 

one after the other to the rebellious husbandmen; but 
only one son — who is called “ the beloved one,” a term 
which is not so much designatory of affection as of that 
on which special affection is grounded, and is there- 
fore practically equivalent to “ only begotten,” or 
“ unique.”^® It is possible that it is by this epithet that 
God designates this His Son on both of the occa- 
sions when He spoke from heaven in order to point 
Him out and mark Him as His own 9^) — “ This 

is my beloved Son.” The meaning is that the Son 
stands out among all others who may be called sons 
as in a unique and unapproached sense the Son of God. 
Of course it is possible to represent this as importing 
nothing more than that the person so designated is the 
Messiah, singled out to be the vice-gerent of God on 
earth; and it is noticeable that it is as the Messiah 
that Jesus calls God appropriatingly ‘His Father’ 
when He declares that the Son of Man is to come in 
the glory of Flis Father with the holy angels ( 8 ^®) , and 
certainly it was in lowly subjection to the will of God 
that He prayed at Gethsemane, “ Abba, Father, re- 
move this cup from me ” (14^^). But this explanation 
seems scarcely adequate; in any case there is intimated 
in this usage a closeness as well as a uniqueness of rela- 
ys Cf. Swete on Mk and also Wellhausen on these passages. “ ‘0 
ofo? fiou 6 dyanrjrdf:” says the latter on 1^% “for the Semites means, 
not ‘ my dear Son,’ but ‘ my unique Son.’ ” For a careful discussion 
of all the involved conceptions see J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul’s 
Epistle to the Ephesians, 1903, pp. 229-233, on ‘“The Beloved’ as 
a Messianic Title.” Dr. Robinson seems to suppose that “ beloved 
Son ” in Mark — not elsewhere — means simply “ dear Son.” But this 
is scarcely conceivable. In point of fact, in 12® the meaning seems to 
be, “sole, unique. Son”; while 1^1 9'^ either bear that same meaning 
or else must be taken, like their parallels, as uniting to the ascription 
of Sonship an additional Messianic title — “ the Beloved.” 


23 


The Designations in Mark 

tlon existing between Jesus and God, which raises Jesus 
far beyond comparison with any other son of man. 
And that remarkable passage, I3^^ In which Jesus 
declares His Ignorance, though He be the Son, of the 
day of His advent, exalts Him apparently above not 
nfien only, but angels as well, next to the Father Him- 
self, with whom rather than with the angels He seems 
to be classed.^® 

All these Messianic designations are represented as 
not only ascribed to Jesus but accepted by Him. They 
Our Lord’s own are not, however, currently employed by 

Testimony to Him; as reported In this narrative. He 
His Messiahship Joes Indeed make occasional use of 
them — ‘the Christ’ (9^h cf. 8^® 12^^ 13^^), the ‘Son 
of David’ (12^^), the ‘Son [of God] ’ (I3^^ cf. 12^) 
— but only exceptionally. The Messianic designation 
which He Is represented as constantly applying to Hlm- 

39 “Note,” says Meyer, “the climax — the angels, the Son, the Father.” 
A. J. Mason {Conditions of our Lord’s Life on Earth, 120), on the 
other hand, thinks “there is no express triple ascent, from men to 
angels, from angels to the Son ” — but the oud'e — ohdi is in a sort par- 
enthetical : “ None knoweth — no not the angels In heaven, nor yet the 
Son— except the Father.” “ All the same,” he adds, “ the sentence is a 
climax, and a pointed one. Our Lord does not say (what would have 
been good Greek) oo8k ol ayysXoi ours 6 wfop, as if the Son were 
in the same class of beings with the angels in heaven, only the highest 
of them. He says oudk — obdi] as if to say, ‘You might suppose that 
the secret was only a secret from those on earth; but it is kept a secret 
even from those in heaven. You might suppose that the secret was 
only a secret for created beings, but it is a secret for the uncreated Son 
Himself. The Father alone knows it.’” Cf. Swete: “No one . . . 

not even . . . nor yet.” Dalman, Words, p. 194, arbitrarily sup- 

poses that the closing words, “nor the Son but the Father only,” may 
be an accretion, while Zeller (Z. fiir oo. Th., 1865, p. 308), on the 
ground of this ascription to Christ of a superangelic nature wishes to 
assign Mark to the second century (see Meyer’s reply, Mk. and Lk., 
E. T., I, 205 note). From all which it is at least clear that the passage 
confessedly assigns a superhuman nature to Jesus. 


24 The Designations of Our Lord 

self is also one peculiar to Himself — ‘ the Son of 
Man.’^° That this designation is actually employed 
as a Messianic title, is apparent not only from its ob- 
vious origin in the vision of Daniel 7^^, to which ref- 
erence is repeatedly made (8^® 13^® 14^“),*^ but also 
from the easy passage which is made, in the course of 
the conversations reported, from one of the other des- 
ignations to this, whereby they are evinced as its 
synonyms. Thus in 8^^ in sequence to Peter’s confes- 
sion of Him as ‘ the Christ,’ we are told that Jesus 
began to teach that “ the Son of Man must suffer many 
things.” Similarly in 13^® our Lord notifies us that 
although many “ false Christs ” shall arise who may 
deceive men, yet when certain signs occur, “ then shall 
they see the Son of Man coming.” Again when ex- 
horted to declare whether He is “ the Christ, the Son 
of the Blessed” (14®^), He responds in the affirmative 
and adds : “ And ye shall see the Son of Man sitting 
at the right hand of power.” Evidently if we are to 
ask, ‘ Who is this Son of Man,’ we must give answer, 

40 210,28 g31,38 ^9,12,31 jo33,45 i^2Q i^21, 41,62^ 

The reference to Daniel seems indisputable. But it is in some- 
what wide circles not allowed. Even conservative writers are occa- 
sionally found seeking another explanation of the phrase, although this 
involves treating the passages mentioned as unhistorical. Exam- 
ples may be found in Volkmar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbenuusstsein Jesu, 
1905, pp. 17 sq.; Siegfried Goebel, Die Reden unseres Herrn nach Jo- 
hannes, 1906, (following his note on Jno ; and Zahn in his Com- 
mentary on Matthew. (Zahn is directly refuted by Fritz Tillmann 
in the Biblische Zeitschrift, 1907, vol. i., 348 seg.). Critics like Well- 
hausen and N. Schmidt, of course, assume that ‘ Son of Man ’ is merely 
Aramaic for “ Man,” and deny all reference to Daniel. What may be 
made of the term, and of the Danielic passage itself, from this point of 
view may be conveniently read in Dr. Cheyne’s Bible Problems, 1904; 
or with a great display of hypothetical learning in Hugo Gressmann’s 
Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Eschatologie, 1905. 


The Designations in Mark 25 

shortly, ‘ The Christ of God.’ And it lies in the evi- 
dence not only that this was the underlying conception 
of our Lord as reported in this Gospel but also that it 
was — however dimly — apprehended by those He ad- 
dressed. There is perhaps no single passage in Mark 
so clear to this effect as John 12^^, where the multitude 
are represented as puzzled by our Lord’s teaching that 
the “ Son of Man must be lifted up,” in view of their 
conviction that “the Christ abideth forever.” “We 
have heard out of the law,” they say, “ that the Christ 
abideth forever: and how sayest thou that the Son 
of Man must be lifted up ? Who is this Son of Man? ” 
This is as much as to say that that ‘ Son of Man ’ who 
is the Messiah is known to them and is known to them 
as the eternal King: but no other ‘Son of Man’ is 
known to them — who is to be “ lifted up ” from the 
earth that He may draw all men unto Him. The same 
implication is latent, however, in the instances reported 
by Mark, the conversations recorded in which would 
have been unintelligible had there not been in the hear- 
ers’ minds some intelligence of the phrase ‘ Son of 
Man ’ as a Messianic title, although it was apparently 
not a Messianic title either in such current use that it 
came naturally to their lips or so unambiguous as to 
be easily comprehended by them in all the implications 
which our Lord compressed into it. 

The difficulty created by our Lord’s use of this 
phrase seems, indeed, as represented by Mark, not so 
much to have lain in apprehending 
that it involved a claim to Mes- 
sianic dignity, as in comprehending the 
character of the Messianic conception which He ex- 
pressed by it. The constant employment of this des- 


2 6 The Designations of Our Lord 

ignation of Himself by our Lord^^ in preference to the 
more current ones, such as, say, ‘ Son of David ’ or 
‘ King of Israel,’ appears to mark in effect an attempt 
on our Lord’s part, in claiming for Himself the Mes- 
sianic dignity, at the same time to fill the conception 
itself with a new import. The nature of the revolution 
which He would work in the Messianic ideal current 
among the people, in other words, is signalized by 
His avoidance of the current designations of the Mes- 
siah and His choice for His constant use of a more 
or less unwonted one which would direct their atten- 
tion to a different region of Old Testament prophecy. 
He says, in effect. In the conception you are cherishing 
of the Messianic king, you are neglecting whole re- 
gions^ of^, prophecy, and are forming most mistaken 
expectations regarding Him : it is from the Son of 
Man of Daniel rather than from the Son of David 
of the Psalms and Samuel that you should take your 
starting point. No single title, of course, sums up the 
entirety of our Lord’s conception of the .Messianic 
function: there are elements of it adumbrated in very 
different sections of Old Testament prediction. But 

42 Cf. Dalman, Words, p. 259; “As for the evangelists themselves 
they take the view that Jesus called Himself the ‘ Son of Man ’ at all 
times and before any company.” Nevertheless Dalman himself sup- 
poses He probably did not actually use the title before Peter’s confes- 
sion (Mk 8^®) ; and Bousset {Jesus, 194) is sure that it was only 
towards the close of His life as death loomed before Him that He 
applied the Danielic prophecy of the Son of Man to Himself, and that 
He never adopted the title in its full content, including the ideas of 
preexistence and of His own judgeship of the world — the ascription of 
these to Him by the evangelists being only an instance of the faith of 
the community working on the tradition (“ it is inconceivable that Jesus 
should have arrogated to Himself the judgeship of the world in place 
of God,” pp. 203-5). 


27 


The Designations in Mark 

He elected, apparently, to point to the picture which 
Daniel draws of the establishment of the Kingdom 
of God on earth as furnishing a starting point for a 
revision of the Messianic ideal current among those 
to whom His preaching was in the first instance ad- 
dressed. 

It may be difficult, in view of the varied elements 
which entered into His Messianic conception, to infer 
with confidence from the substance of the sayings in 
which Jesus refers to Himself as the ‘ Son of Man,’ 
precisely the Messianic conception He understood to 
be covered by that designation.^® And much less can 
we suppose that His whole Messianic idea is embedded 
in these sayings. He refers to Himself by this designa- 
tion in only a portion of the sayings which must be 
utilized in an attempt to determine His Messianic con- 
ception; and there is no reason to suppose that He 
always uses this designation when giving utterance to 
conceptions which He subsumed under it. Neverthe- 
less, having guarded ourselves against rashness of in- 
ference and undue narrowness of view by reminding 
ourselves of these obvious facts, we must certainly, 
in an attempt to discover the significance of the des- 
ignation ‘ of Man ’ in the Gospel of Mark, begin 
by observing the actual connections in which Jesus is 
represented in that Gospel as employing it, with a view 
to discovering, as far as possible, from the substance 
of these sayings the actual implications which it em- 
bodied for Him, and through Him for the writer of 
this Gospel who reports just these sayings from His 
lips. 

Cf. the opening sentence of Dalman in his discussion of this sub- 
ject {Words, 256). 


28 


The Designations of Our Lord 

From these sayings, then, we learn that the life of 
the ‘ Son of Man ’ on earth is essentially a lowly one : 
He came not to be ministered unto, but 
‘SonT^M^’ minister (lo^^). Suffering belongs 
therefore to the very essence of His 
mission (8^^ 10^^ 14“^’^^) and has accordingly 

been pre-announced for Him in the Scriptures (9^^ 
14^^). But this suffering is not in His own behalf, 
but for others, the form of His ministry to whom is 
“to give His life a ransom for many” (10^®). But 
just because His death is a sufficing ransom, death 
cannot be all: having given His life as a ransom for 
many the ‘ Son of Man ’ shall rise again (8^^ 9^’^^ 10^^). 
Nor is this vindication by resurrection all. He is 
to “rise again” after three days (8^^ 9^^ 10^^), but 
is to “ come ” again “ in clouds with great glory and 
power” (13^®, cf. 14®^) at some more remote, undes- 
ignated time (13^^), to establish the Kingdom in which 
He shall sit at the right hand of power (14®^). At 
this His coming He “ shall send forth the angels and 
gather together His elect from the four winds, from 
the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part 
of heaven ” (13“^) ; and shall show Himself ashamed 
of all who shall have been ashamed of Him and of 
His words in the adulterous generation with which He 
dwelt on earth (8^^). It is clearly the judgment scene 
that is here brought before us, and the eternal destinies 
of men are represented as lying in the hands of the 
‘ Son of Man.’ “ His elect,” “ those whom He has 
chosen,” are gathered into the Kingdom; His enemies, 
those who have rejected Him, are left without. Ac- 
cordingly it is not surprising that He who came to 
give His life a ransom for many (10^^) and who is 


The Designations in Mark 29 

to come again in order to distribute to men their final 
destinies should have authority given Him even while 
on earth to order the religious observances by which 
men are trained in the life which looks beyond the 
limits of earth (2“®) and even to forgive sins (2^^). 
Perhaps in the light of 8^® 13% in the phrase “ on 
earth ” we may see a contrast not so much with the 
“power” of God to forgive sins “in heaven” (cf. 
verse 7), as with the authority to award the desti- 
nies of all flesh (13^^ “His elect”; 8^® those that 
are ashamed of Him) hereafter to be exercised in 
the heavenly kingdom by the ‘ Son of Man ’ Him- 
self. 

What perhaps most strikes us in this series of ut- 
terances is its prevailing soteriological, or perhaps we 
should say soteriologico-eschatological, 
*S^n^oT\lan' christological bearing. To 

Mark the ‘ Son of Man,’ as reflected 
In the sayings he cites from the lips of the Lord, Is the 
divinely sent Redeemer, come to minister to men and 
to give His life a ransom for many, who as Redeemer 
brings His chosen ones to glory and, holding the des- 
tinies of men In His hands, casts out those who have 
rejected Him — even while yet on earth preadumbrat- 
Ing the final issue by exercising His authority over 
religious ordinances and the forgiveness of sins. Little 
is said directly of the person of this Redeemer. It is 
a human figure, ministering, suffering, dying, — though 
clothed already with authority in the midst of Its hu- 
mility (or should we not rather say. Its humilia- 
tion?) — which moves before us In Its earthly career: 
it Is a superhuman figure which is to return, clothed 
in glory — “ sitting at the right hand of power ” and 


30 The Designations of Our Lord 

coming with the clouds of heaven (14^'), or “ coming 
In clouds with great power and glory” (13“^) — i^^ 
the glory of His Father with the holy angels” ( 8 ^^), 
those holy angels who are sent forth by Him to do 
His bidding, that they may gather to Him His chosen 
ones (13“^). Although there are intermingled traits 
derived from other lines of prophecy, the reference 
to the great vision of Daniel In these utterances 

Is express and pervasive, and we cannot go astray In 
assuming that Jesus Is represented as, in adopting the 
title of ‘ Son of Man ’ for His constant designation of 
Himself, intending to Identify Himself with that 
heavenly figure of Daniel’s vision, who Is described as 
“ like to a son of man ” In contrast with the bestial 
figures of the preceding context, and as having com- 
mitted to Him by God a universal and eternal do- 
minion. Primarily His purpose seems to have been 
to represent Himself as the introducer of the Kingdom 
of God; and in doing so, to emphasize on the one 
hand the humiliation of His earthly lot as the founder 
of the kingdom in His blood, and on the other the 
glory of His real station as exhibited in His consumma- 
tion of the kingdom with power. So conceived, this 
designation takes its place at the head of all the Mes- 
sianic designations, and involves a conception of the 
Messianic function and personality alike which re- 
moves it as far as possible from that of a purely 
earthly monarchy, administered by an earth-born king. 
Under this conception the Messianic person is con- 
ceived as a heavenly being, who comes to earth with 
a divinely given mission; His work on earth is con- 
ceived as purely spiritual and as carried out in a state 
of humiliation; while His glory is postponed to a fu- 


31 


The Designations in Mark 

ture manifestation which is identified with the judg- 
ment day and the end of the world. In the figure of 
the ‘ Son of Man,’ in a word, we have the spiritual 
and supernatural Messiah by way of eminence.^^ 

The whole subject has recently been excellently reviewed by a 
Roman Catholic scholar, F. Tillmann, Der Menschensohn, 1907. He 
sums up as follows: “The result of our investigation Is in brief this: 
The designation ‘the Son of Man’ is a title of the Messiah just as 
truly as the designation ‘ Son of David,’ ‘ the Anointed,’ and the like. 
Jesus adopted this designation because it corresponded best to His 
nature and His purposes, and gave least occasion for the political, 
national hopes which His people connected with the person of the 
Messiah. If we inquire further into the specific content of this 
Messianic designation, the key is supplied by the reference embodied in 
it to the prophecy of Daniel: the Son of Man is the Divine-human 
inaugurator of the Messianic salvation predicted by the prophets. He 
with whom the reign of God on earth takes its start” (pp. 175-6). 


MARK’S CONCEPTION OF OUR LORD 


If, now, we review the series of designations applied 
to our Lord in the Gospel of Mark, as a whole, we 
shall, we think, be led by them into the heart of Mark’s 
representation of Jesus. 

What Mark undertook in his Gospel was obviously 
to give an account of how that great religious move- 
A Divine ment originated which we call Chris- 

Intervention tianity, but which he calls “ the Gospel 
in Christ q£ Jesus Christ ” — the glad tidings, 
that is, concerning Jesus Christ which were being pro- 
claimed throughout the world. To put it in his own 
words, he undertook to set forth “the beginning of 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ ” (i^). The account which 
he gives of the beginning of this great religious move- 
y ment, by means of his ‘ Gospel,’ is briefly that it origi- 
^ nated in a divine intervention; and that this divine 
intervention was manifested in the ministry of the di- 
vinely promised and divinely sent Messiah who was no 
other than the man Jesus. This man is represented 
as coming, endowed with ample authority for His task; 
and as prosecuting this task by the aid of supernatural 
powers by which He was at once marked out as God’s 
delegate on earth and enabled, in the face of all dif- 
ficulties and oppositions, to accomplish to its end what 
He had set His hand to do. 

It is idle to speak of Mark presenting us in his 

32 


Mark’s Conception of Our Lord 33 

account of Jesus with the picture of a purely human 
Christ’s Life life. It belongs to the very essence of 
Thoroughly his undertaking to portray this life as 
Supernatural supernatural; and, from beginning to 
end, he sets it forth as thoroughly supernatural. The 
Gospel opens, therefore, by introducing Jesus to us 
as the divinely given Messiah, in whom God had from 
the ages past promised to visit His people; heralded 
as such by the promised messenger making ready the 
way of the Lord; and witnessed by this messenger 
as the “ mightiest ” of men, who bore in His hands 
the real potencies of a new life (i®); and by God 
Himself from heaven as His Son, His beloved, in 
whom He was well pleased Anointed and 

tested for His task, Jesus is then presented as entering 
upon and prosecuting His work as God’s representa- 
tive, endowed with all authority and endued with all 
miraculous powers. His authority was manifested 
alike in His teaching (T^), in His control of demonic 
personalities (T”^), in the forgiveness of sins (2^^), ^ 

in His sovereignty over the religious ordinances of 
Israel (2^®), in His relations to nature and nature’s 
laws (4^^), in His dominion over death itself (5^^). 

As each of these typical exercises of authority is sig- 
nalized in turn and copiously illustrated by instances, 
the picture of a miraculous life becomes ever more 
striking, and indeed stupendous. Even the failure of 
His friends to comprehend Him and the malice of 
His enemies in assaulting Him, are made by the evan- 
gelist contributory to the impression of an utterly 
supernatural life which he wishes to make on his 
readers. So little was it a normal human life that 
Jesus lived that His uncomprehending friends were 


34 


The Designations of Our Lord 


X 


tempted to think Him beside Himself, and His ene- 
mies proclaimed Him obviously suffering from “ pos- 
session ” Whatever else this life was, it cer- 

tainly was not, in view of any observer, a “ natural ” 
one. The “unnaturalness” of it is not denied: it is 
only pointed out that this “ unnaturalness ” was sys- 
tematic, and that it was systematically in the interests 
of holiness. What is manifested in it, therefore, is 
neither the vagaries of lunacy nor the wickedness of 
demonism. What is exhibited is the binding of Satan 
and the destruction of satanic powers (cf. i"‘ et saepe) . 
To ascribe these manifestations to Satan is therefore 
to blaspheme the Spirit of God. Nobody, it appears, 
dreamed of doubting in any interest the abnormality 
of this career: and we should not misrepresent Mark 
if we said that his whole Gospel is devoted to making 
the impression that Jesus’ life and manifestation were 
supernatural through and through. 

This is, of course, however, not quite the same as 
saying that Mark has set himself to portray in Jesus 
Jesus the life of a supernatural person, 

the Whether the supernatural life he de- 

Messiah picts is supernatural because it is the 
life on earth of a supernatural person, or because it is the 
life of a man with whom God dwelt and through whom 
God wrought, may yet remain a question. Certainly 
very much in Mark’s narrative would fall in readily 
with the latter hypothesis. To him Jesus is primarily 
the Messiah, and the Messiah is primarily the agent 
of God in bringing in the new order of things. Un- 
doubtedly Mark’s fundamental thought of Jesus is that 
He is the man of God’s appointment, with whom 


'Markus Conception of Our Lord 35 

God is. Designating Him currently merely by His 
personal name of ‘ Jesus,’ and representing Him as 
currently spoken of by His contemporaries merely as 
‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and addressed by the simple hon- 
orific titles of ‘ Rabbi,’ ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Lord ’ — His funda- 
mental manifestation is to him plainly that of a man 
among men. That this man was the Messiah need not 
in itself import more than that He was the subject of 
divine influences beyond all other men, and the vehicle 
Df divine operations surpassing all other human ex- 
perience. It may fairly be asked, therefore, what 
requires us to go beyond the divine office to explain 
this supernaturally filled life? Will not the assumption 
of the Messiahship of Jesus fully account for the 
abounding supernaturalism of His activity as por- 
trayed by Mark? Questions like these are in point 
of fact constantly raised around us and very variously 
answered. But it behooves us to be on our guard re- 
specting them that we be not led into a false antithesis, 
IS if we must explain Mark’s presentation of the 
supernatural life of Jesus either on the basis of His 
office as Messiah or on the basis of His superhuman 
oersonality. 

There is no necessary contradiction between these 
:wo hypotheses; and we must not introduce here 
a factitious “ either — or.” What it behooves us to do 
is simply to inquire how the matter lay in Mark’s mind; 
what the real significance of the Messiahship he at- 
tributed to Jesus, and represented Jesus as claiming 
for Himself, is; and whether he posits for Jesus and 
represents Him as asserting for Himself something 
more than a human personality. 


36 The Designations of Our Lord 

We cannot have failed to note in reviewing the 
designations applied in the course of Mark’s narrative 
Jesus* Person to our Lord, a tendency of them all 
Enhances His when applied to Him to grow in rich- 
Designations content. The term ‘ Lord ’ is 

merely an honorific address, equivalent to our ‘ Sir ’ : but 
when applied to Jesus it seems to expand in significance 
until it ends by implying supreme authority. The term 
‘ Messiah ’ is a mere term of office and might be ap- 
plied to anyone solemnly set apart for a service: but 
when applied to Jesus it takes on fuller and fuller 
significance until it ends by assimilating Him to the 
Divine Being Himself. He who simply reads over 
Mark’s narrative, noting the designations he applies 
to our Lord, accordingly, will not be able to doubt 
that Mark conceived of Jesus not merely as officially 
■ the representative of God but as Himself a superhuman 
person, or that Mark means to present Jesus as Him- 
X self so conceiving of His nature and personality. The 
evidence of this is very copious, but also often rather 
subtle; and, in endeavoring to collect and appreciate 
it, we might as well commence with some of the plain- 
est items, although this method involves a somewhat 
unordered presentation of it. 

Let us look, then, first at that remarkable passage 
(13^^) in which Jesus acknowledges ignorance of the 
Jesus a time of His (second) coming.^ Here, 
Superangelic in the very act of admitting limitations 
Person pjjg knowledge, in themselves aston- 

ishing, He yet asserts for Himself not merely a super- 

1 On account of this profession of ignorance, Prof. Schmiedel {Encyc. 
Biblica, 1881) gives this passage a place among those nine “absolutely 
credible passages ” which he calls “ the foundation pillars for a truly 


Mark!s Conception of Our Lord 37 

human but even a superangellc rank in the scale of 
being. 

In any possible,^ interpretation of the passage, 
He separates Himself from the “ angels in heaven ” 
(note the enhancing definition of locality, carrying with 
it the sense of the exaltation of these angels above 
all that is earthly) as belonging to a different class 
from them, and that a superior class. To Jesus as He 
Is reported, and presumably to Mark reporting Him, 
we see, Jesus “ the Son ” stands as definitely and as 
incomparably above the category of angels, the high- 
est of God’s creatures, as to the author of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, whose argument may be taken as a 
commentary upon this passage (Heb 2^). Nor is 
this passage singular in Mark in exalting Jesus in dig- 
nity and authority above the angels. Already in the 
account of the temptation at the opening of His min- 
istry we find the angels signalized as ministering to 
Him (i^^), and elsewhere they appear as His subor- 
dinates swelling His train (8^®) or His servants obey- 
ing His behests (13^^ “He shall send the angels”). 
Clearly, therefore, to Mark Jesus is not merely a 
superhuman but a superangellc personality: and the 
question at once obtrudes itself whether a superangellc 
person is not by that very fact removed from the 
category of creatures. 

icientific life of Jesus.” If so, a “ truly scientific life of Jesus ” must 
illow that He asserted for Himself a superangellc, that is, a more 
han creaturely dignity of person. Others, just for this reason, would 
leny the words to Jesus (e.g. Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion, 
;9o; N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, 147, 231 note), and even 
Kalman is not superior to the temptation arbitrarily to apportion them 
)artly to Jesus and partly to His followers {Words, p. 194). But all 
his is purely subjective criticism. 


38 The Designations of Our Lord 

A similar implication, as has already been pointed 
out, is embedded in the title ‘ Son of Man,’ which 
Jesus Mark represents as our Lord’s stated 

of Heavenly self-designation. The appeal involved 
Origin Daniel is a definite as- 

sertion for the Messiah of a heavenly as distinguished 
from an earthly origin, with all the suggestions of 
preexistence, divine exaltation and authority, and end- 
less sovereignty necessarily connected with a heavenly 
origin. It would be impossible to frame a Messianic 
conception on the basis of this vision of Daniel and to 
suppose the Messiah to be in His person a mere man 
deriving His origin from the earth.^ This is sufficiently 
illustrated indeed by the history of the Messianic ideal 
among the Jews. There is very little evidence among 
the Jews before or contemporary with our Lord, of re- 
sort to Daniel as a basis for Messianic hopes: 

^fbut wherever this occurs it is the conception of a pre- 
existent, heavenly monarch who is to judge the world 
in righteousness which is derived from this passage.^ 
No other conception, in fact, could be derived from 
Daniel, where the heavenly origin of the eternal King 
is thrown into the sharpest contrast with the lower 

2 Cf. Dalman, Words, 242: “The destined possessor of the universal 

dominion comes not from the earth, far less from the sea, but from 
heaven. He is a being standing in a near relation to God . . .” 

3 The Similitudes of Enoch and the Second Book of Esdras (more 
commonly called 4 Esdras). Cf. Dalman, Words, pp. 242 and 131: 
“ From the first Christian century there are only two writings known 
which deal with Dan 7^^, the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch, and 
the Second Book of Esdras” . . . “After the Similitudes of Enoch 
the only representatives of the idea [of the heavenly preexistence of 
the Messiah] independent of Enoch, are 2 Esdras in the first Christian 
century and the Appendix to Pesikta Rabbati in the seventh or eighth 
century.” 


39 


Markus Conception of Our Lord 

source of the preceding bestial rulers. Judaism may 
not have known how to reconcile this heavenly origin 
of the Messiah with His birth as a human being, and 
may have, therefore, when so conceiving the Mes- 
siah, sacrificed His human condition entirely to His 
heavenly nature and supposed Him to appear upon the 
^arth as a developed personality.^ That our Lord does 
aot feel this difficulty or share this notion manifests, 
in the matter of His adoption of the title ‘ Son of 
Man ’ as His favorite Messianic self-designation. His 
independence of whatever Jewish tradition may be 
supposed to have formed itself. But His adoption of 
the title at all, with its obvious reference to the vision 
□f Daniel,® necessarily carried with it the assertion of 
heavenly origination and nature. 

This in turn carried with it, we may add, the con- 
ception that He had “ come ” to earth upon a mission, 
Jesus* ^ conception which does not fail to find 

Earthly Life independent expression in such passages, 
a Mission jss jq45^ Pqj.^ assertions 

in these passages that He “ came forth ” to preach, 
that He “ came ” not to save the righteous but sinners, 
that He “ came ” not to be ministered unto but to 
minister and to give His life as a ransom for many, 
refer to His divine mission (cf. also lies on 

their face. It is suggested by the pregnancy of the 

4 Cf. Dalman, 131: “Judaism has never known anything of a pre- 
existence peculiar to the Messiah, antecedent to His hirth as a human 
heingJ' “ He is to make His appearance on earth as a fully developed 
personality.” See p. 301 : “ The celestial preexistence of Messiah, as 
stated in the Similitudes of Enoch and in 2 [4] Esdr 13, 14, excluding — 
50 at least it seems — an earthly origin, implies, apart from the incen- 
tive contributed by Dan 7^^, his miraculous superhuman appearance.” 
Cf. p. 257 et seq. 

® Cf. Dalman, pp. 257 et seq. 


40 


The Designations of Our Lord 

expressions themselves, and the connections In which 
they are employed; and It Is supported by the even 
more direct language of some of the parallels.® In 
themselves these expressions may not necessarily In- 
volve the Idea of preexistence (cf. 9^^ and Jno of 
John the Baptist) ; but they fall readily In with It, 
and so far suggest It that when supported by other 
forms of statement Implying It, they cannot well be 
taken In any other sense.’ 

® Cf. Swete, on Mk “‘For to this end came I forth’ (Mark), 
is interpreted for us by Luke, ‘ Because to this end was I sent.’ ‘ Came 
I forth’ does not refer to His departure from Capernaum {v. 35), but 
to His mission from the Father (Jno 8^^ j22op’. ^nd on Mk 10^®: 
“ For ^X6ov in reference to our Lord’s entrance into the world, cf. 

2^’^; it is used also of the Baptist (9I1 seq., j^q jT) regarded as a 
divine messenger ” — whence we observe that it does not of itself imply 
preexistence. Meyer, on notes that this view is held by Euthym- 
ius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Lange and others, — 
conf. Baumgarten-Crusius ; he himself does not hold it. Cf. Meyer, 
on Mt “His coming as such is always brought forward with great 
emphasis by Mark and Luke.” Holtzmann on thinks the reference 
is to the departure from Capernaum, while Luke’s phrase (4^^) is a 
transition to the Johannine form of expression (e.g. 8^^)^ 

Cf. G. S. Streatfeild, The Self -Interpretation of Jesus Christ, 1906, 
pp. 81-83. Mr. Streatfeild connects these sayings with those in which 
our Lord refers to His return in glory. “ Thus to describe Himself as 
coming into the world,” he remarks, “ suggests, if it does no more, a 
consciousness of personal vocation, a conviction, if not a consciousness, 
of preexistence.” “ The word ‘ come,’ ” he adds, “ is never, so far as the 
present writer recollects, used of or by the prophets in the sense in 
which our Lord applies it to Himself. Apparent exceptions are shown 
to be only apparent by the context. On the other hand, the term is 
constantly used in the O. T. of God and the Messianic theophany.” 
Perhaps Mr. Streatfeild slightly overstates the matter, but what he says 
is essentially true. His use of these phrases certainly testifies to our 
Lord’s deep consciousness of being intrusted with a great mission which 
He had come into the world to fulfil — as the use of them of John the 
Baptist testifies to his mission: and the pregnancy of the use He makes 
of them, and the connections in which He uses them, strongly suggest a 


41 


Markus Conception of Our Lord 

It is, however, above all in the picture which Jesus 
:mself draws for us of the ‘ Son of Man ’ that we 
Jesus’ see His superhuman nature portrayed. 

Functions For the figure thus brought before us 

Divine jg distinctly a superhuman one; one 
lich is not only in the future to be seen sitting at the 
;ht hand of power and coming with the clouds of 
aven (14^^) — in clouds with great power and glory 
3“®), even in the glory of His Father with the holy 
gels (8^^) who do His bidding as the Judge of all 

1 earth, gathering His elect for Him (13^®) while 

2 punishes His enemies (8^®) ; but which in the pres- 
t world itself exercises functions which are truly 
dne, — for who is Lord of the Sabbath but the God 
10 instituted it in commemoration of His own rest 

and who can forgive sins but God only cf. 
*se 7) ? The assignment to the Son of Man 
the function of Judge of the world and the 
:ription to Him of the right to forgive sins 
in each case, but another way of saying that 
; is a divine person; for these are divine acts.® 

t^iction on His part of preexistence, though they do not in themselves 
jpportedly avail to prove it. The language might be employed 
iistently of a divine mission without preexistence; but it seems to 
;mployed here with deeper implications. 

On the forgiveness of sins as a divine act, cf. Dalman, Words, 262 
314, 315. As against J. Weiss, Dalman notes that it is a fact 
at Judaism never from O. T. times to the present day, has ventured 
lake any such assertion in regard to the Messiah ” as that the “ Lord 
i power to forgive sins.” Cf. Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, 
84. On the judgment of the world as a divine act, cf. Bousset, Jesus, 
205. Dr. Stanton, Je<wish and Christian Messiah, 291, says: “The 
ge in that last judgment is on Jewish ground nowhere the Messiah. 

assignment of this office to Him is the most significant new feature 
:he Christian doctrine of the Messiah.” But this is because Dr. 
iton considers the Similitudes of Enoch post-Christian (cf. pp. 61, 


42 


The Designations of Our Lord 

We have already had occasion to point out the 
uniqueness and closeness of the relation to God which 
The Uniqueness is indicated by the designation ‘ Son of 
of God ’ as ascribed to Jesus. In the 
Jesus* Sonship parable of Mark 12 not only is it em- 
phasized that God has but one such son (verse 6), 
but He is as such expressly contrasted with all God’s 
“servants” (verses 2 and 4) and expressly signalized 
as God’s “heir” (verse 7). As we read this parable 

140). There, but apparently there only, in pre-Christian Jewish litera- 
ture the Messiah appears as Judge of the world to whom all judgment 
has been committed (see Charles, The Book of Enoch, 128, 129). 
Hence Dr. Stanton in Hastings’ B. D. iii. 356 et seq. says more exactly: 
“In this document, . . . He is to be the Judge in the universal judg- 
ment, ... a function never assigned to the Messiah, but always 
ascribed to the Most High in other Jewish writings.” Cf. Salmond 
(Hastings’ B. D., i, 751) : “In the O. T. the final arbitrament of men’s 
lives is not committed to the Messiah . . . Only in the late section of 
the Book of Enoch does the Messiah appear in any certain or definite 
form as the Judge at the last day.” Perhaps, however, it is not perfectly 
accurate with respect to this particular point to sum up as Dr. Salmond 
does, thus: “Christ’s doctrine of a universal, individual judgment, at 
the end of things, in which judgment He Himself is arbiter of human 
destinies, carried the O. T. conception to its proper issue, while it gave 
a new certainty, consistency and spirituality to the developed Idea which 
had arisen in Judaism in the period following the last of the Jewish 
prophets.” Though Jesus had a forerunner in Enoch in conceiving the 
Messiah as the Judge of the world. He does not seem at all dependent 
on Enoch in this conception, any more than in others connected with it 
and growing out of the common reference of both to Dan Sal_ 

mond, Christian Doct. of Immortality, 4 ed., 282-284, treats the whole 
subject judiciously: cf. further Charles, Encyc. Biblica, 1362, §66, and 
Expositor, VI. v. 251, 258; also Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 154, 487. 
What is to be noted is that In the Similitudes of Enoch, where alone in 
pre-Christian sources the judgment is attributed to the Messiah, the 
Messiah is conceived as a superhuman Being, the Revealer of all things, 
and the Messianic Lord of the earth, i.e. the attribution of judgment to 
Him is connected with the attribution of other divine prerogatives to 
Him also, so that the implication of divinity inherent in this attribu- 
tion is not obscured. 


43 


Alark^s Conception of Our Lord 

the mind inevitably reverts again to the representation 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in its doctrine 
of the Son (cf. Heb 3® etc.), might almost appear 
a thetical exposition of it. And in the immediate 
recognition of Jesus as the ‘ Son of God ’ by the evil 
spirits — “ as soon as ever they caught sight of Him 
— we can scarcely fail to see a testimony from the 
spiritual world to a sonship in Jesus surpassing that 
of mere appointment to an earthly office and function 
and rooted in what lies beyond this temporal sphere. 
It is noteworthy also that when responding to the ad- 
juration of the high priest to declare whether He were 
‘ the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,’ Jesus points ap- 
parently to His exaltation at the right hand of power 
and His coming with the clouds of heaven, which they 
were to see, as the warranty for His acceptance of the 
designation : as much as to say that to be ‘ the Christ, 
the Son of the Blessed,’ involves session at the right 
hand of God and the eternal dominion promised in 
Daniel (Mk 14^"). And it is noticeable farther that 
immediately upon our Lord’s acceptance of the ascrip- 
tion the high priest accused Him of blasphemy (14®^), 
which appears to be an open indication that to claim 
to be ‘ the Son of the Blessed ’ was all one with claim- 
ing to be a divine person.^^ Even the heathen cen- 

® Cf. Meyer and Swete on Mk 3^1. 

10 W. C. Allen, on Mt 26®^, remarks: “ Wellhausen argues that the 
claim to be the Messiah could not, according to Jewish conceptions, 
have been regarded as a blasphemous claim. But quite apart from the 
exact meaning of the relationship of the Messiah to God which is im- 
plied in such terms as ‘ Son of God,’ ‘ Son of the Blessed,’ the nature of 
the Messiah as depicted in the literature of the period as of earthly and 
heavenly origin (cf. Volz, Jiid. Eschat., pp. 214 f.) is such that claims 
to be the Messiah might quite well be regarded as blasphemous, if they 
were untrue.” This, however, seems scarcely well founded. Zahn 


44 The Designations of Oiir Lord 

turlon’s enforced conviction, as he witnessed the cir- 
cumstances of Jesus’ death, that this man certainly 
was ‘ a Son of God,’ appears to be recorded for no 
other reason (15^^) than to make plain that the super- 
naturalness of Jesus’ person was such as necessarily to 
Impress any observer. No doubt a heathen centurion 
Is but a poor witness to Jesus’ essential nature; and no 
doubt his designation of Him as “ a son of God ” 
must needs be taken In a sense consonant with his stand- 
point as a heathen. But It manifests how from his 
own standpoint Jesus’ death Impressed him — as the 
death, to wit, of one of superhuman dignity. And Its 
record seems to round out the total Impression which 
Mark appears to wish to make In his use of the phrase, 
viz., that the superhuman dignity of Jesus was per- 
force recognized and testified to by all classes and by 
every variety of witness. The spiritual denizens of 
another world 3^^ 5'^), the appointed guardians 

of the spiritual life of Israel (14®^), Jesus Himself 
(126 j ^32 1462^^ QqJ Heaven 9"^), and even the 
heathen man who gazed upon Him as He hung on 
the cross, alike certify to His elevation, as the Son 

(on Mt, pp. 694-5) is better: “The high priest demands an answer not 
to the simple question whether Jesus gave Himself out for the Messiah, 
but whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God. . . . The mere 

affirmative of the question whether He were the Messiah, could not be 
understood by the whole Sanhedrin as an unambiguous blasphemy. It 
was only a liar or a fanatic that Jesus could have been called on that 
ground by those who did not believe in Him. Jesus affirmed, however, 
also the other question, whether He was the Son of God ; and indeed 
on oath, since he was sworn by the Living God (I Kings 

Wellhausen’s remark need not be disputed: “The centurion uses 
the expression ‘Son of God’ not, like the high priest (14®!), as an 
epithet of the Jewish Messiah, but in the heathen sense; he says also 
not ‘the Son’ but ‘a son’ of God” (on 15^^). 


^Mark^s Conception of Our Lord 45 

d£ God, in the supernatural dignity of His person, 
above all that is earthly, all “ servants ” and “ min- 
sters ” of God whatever, including the very angels. 
[Certainly this designation, ‘ Son of God,’ is colored so 
ieeply with supernatural implications that even apart 
From such a passage as 13^^ where the superangelic 
lature of the Son is openly expressed, we cannot avoid 
roncluding (cf. especially 12^ 14®^ 15^^) that a super- 
latural personality as well as a supernatural office is 
ntended to be understood by it. And if so, in view 
)f the nature of the term itself, it is difficult to doubt 
:hat this supernaturalness of personality is intended 
o be taken at the height of the Divine. What can 
he Son, the unique and “ beloved ” Son of God, who 
dso is God’s heir, in contradistinction from all His 
.ervants, even the angels, be — but God Himself? 

It has already been suggested that something of this 
mplication is embedded in the employment of the 
Jesus designation ‘Bridegroom’ (2^^’“'^) of 
Assimilated to our Lord. For there is certainly in- 
Jehovah volved in it not merely the representa- 
:ion, afterwards copiously developed in the New Tes- 
ament, of our Lord as the Bridegroom of the people 
)f God, by virtue of which His Church is His bride 
[Mt 22^ 25^ Jno 3“^ Rom 7^ 2 Cor ii^, Eph 5^^ Rev 
9'^ 2 1“’^), but also a reminiscence of those Old Tes- 
ament passages, of which Hos 2^^ may be taken as the 
ype (cf. Ex 20'^, Jer 2“^, Ezek which 

[ehovah’s relation to His people is set forth under the 
igure of that of a loving husband to his wife. In 
)ther words, the use of ‘ the Bridegroom ’ as a designa- 
ion of our Lord assimilates His relation to the people 
)f God to that which in the Old Testament is exclu- 


46 The Designations of Oiir Lord 

sively, even jealously, occupied by Jehovah Himself, 
and raises the question whether Jesus is not thereby, 
in some sense, at any rate, identified with Jehovahd* 
This question once clearly raised, other phenomena 
y obtrude themselves at once upon our attention. We 
are impelled, for example, to ask afresh what sense 
our Lord put upon the words of the noth Psalm, 
“ The Lord said unto my Lord, ‘ Sit Thou on my right 
hand till I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy 
feet,’” when (Mk He adduced them to 

rebuke the Jews for conceiving the Christ as only the 
son of David, whereas David himself in this passage, 
and that speaking in the Spirit, expressly calls Him 
his Lord? It is not merely the term ‘Lord’ wLich 
comes into consideration here; but the exaltation which 
the application of the term in this connection to Him 
assipns to the Messiah. The scribes would have had 

o 

no difficulty in understanding that the Messiah should 
be David’s “ greater son,” who should — nay, must — 
because Messiah, occupy a higher place in the King- 
dom of God than even His great father.^^ The point 
of the argument turns on the supreme exaltation of 
the Lordship ascribed to Him, Implying something su- 
perhuman in the Messiah’s personality and therefore 
in His origin. Who is this ‘ Lord ’ who is to sit at 

12 Cf. Streatfeild, The Self -Interpretation of Jesus Christ, pp. 92, 93: 
“What that term meant to the mind of the Jew may be gathered from 
a study of the prophetic writings, which frequently portray God as 
the Husband of His people, and denounce the disobedience and idolatry 
of Israel as spiritual adultery. For any one to speak of Himself as the 
Bridegroom of the Kingdom was little short of a claim to Deity: the 
title was an impossible one for man.” 

13 Dalman, p. 285: “There would indeed be nothing remarkable In 
the fact that a son should attain a higher rank than his father, and for 
the scribes It would not in the least be strange that the Messiah should 
be greater than David.” 


Markus Conception of Our Lord 47 

:he right hand of the ‘ Lord ’ who is Jehovah, and 
:o whom David himself therefore does reverence? It 
s hard to believe that our Lord intended — or was 
understood by Mark to intend — by such a designation 
)f the Messiah, who He Himself was, to attribute to 
^im less than a superhuman — or shall we not even 
ay a divine — dignity, by virtue of which He should 
)e recognized as rightfully occupying the throne of 
jodd^ To sit at the right hand of God is to partici- 
)ate in the divine dominion,^® which, as it is a greater 
han human dignity, would seem to require a greater 
ban human nature. To be in this sense David’s Lord 
alls little if anything short of being David’s God.^® 
In estimating the significance of such a passage, we 
nust not permit to fall out of sight the constant use 
Jesus of the term ‘ Lord ’ in the Lxx version 
Identified with of the Old Testament for God.^’’^ There 
Jehovah jg << practically equivalent to God 

[6^6^) and is the rendering of the solemn name of 
[ehovah.”^® The writers of the New Testament, and 

So Dalman {Words, 214) says shortly: “He whom David called 
Lord’ was no mere man” (cf. pp. 385-7). Dalman thinks there is 
o hint of “the two natures” in the passage: this may be doubted (cf. 
deyer on Mt 22^®, and Alexander in loc., also Delitzsch on Ps no, p. 
85) ; but this need not be pressed here. 

Cf. Delitzsch, Psalms, iii. p, 189. Stanton, Jewish and Christian 
lessiah, ioi-2, points out that there is no difficulty in supposing that 
>avid himself may have anticipated a greater son: “Knowing how far 
e had himself fallen below the standard of the true covenant king, 
nd how the glory and prosperity of his reign had been marred through 
le consequences of his own sins, he might thus in spirit pay homage 
) a greater descendant.” 

Cf. Swete’s note on Mk 

Cf. D. Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, pp. 295 et seq, 
Somerville, p. 143. The supplanting of Jehovah by ‘ Lord ’ in the 
XX of course rests upon the K^ri perpetuum by which Adhonai was 
iibstituted for the “ ineffable name ” in the reading of the Hebrew 


48 The Designations of Our Lord 

Mark among them, must be understood to have been 
thoroughly familiar with this use of the term, and could 
scarcely fail to see in its appellative application to 
Christ a suggestion of His deity, when the implications 
of the context were, as we have seen them repeatedly 
to be, of His superhuman dignity and nature. Par- 
ticularly when they apply to Him Old Testament 
passages in which the term ‘ Lord ’ refers to God, we 
can scarcely suppose they do so without a consciousness 
of the implications involved, and without a distinct 
intention to convey them.^® When, for example, in the 
opening verses of Mark, we read: “ Even as it is writ- 
ten in Isaiah the prophet. Behold I send my messenger 
before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; The voice 
of one crying in the wilderness, make ye ready the way 
of the Lord, make His paths straight, — [so] John 
came,” etc., we cannot easily rid ourselves of the im- 
pression that the term ‘ Lord ’ is applied to Jesus. The 
former of the two prophetic citations here brought 

text. This in turn, however, rests upon the connection of the idea of 
‘Lord’ with ‘Jehovah.’ “Jehovah,” says Oehler {Theology of the 
O. T., E. T., ed. Day, 1883, p. loi), “ is the Lord . . . That the idea 
of is immediately connected with the idea of Jehovah is clear 

from the fact that the two names are frequently associated, and that 
''JTX would in later times be substituted in reading for niH' . . .” 

When our Lord is called ‘ Lord,’ therefore, in the divine sense, it is 
to Jehovah specifically that the suggestion points. 

Cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 197, 198 and Note on 
the latter page. Speaking of passages like these he says: “ Deut 33^ 
appears to be alluded to in various places in the Synoptists. It is a 
passage which speaks in the clearest terms of Jehovah coming to judg- 
ment, and the attribution of the language in the Synoptists to the 
second coming of the Christ is an indication of the existence, even in 
the body of tradition which they record, of a belief in the oneness of 
Christ with God.” Mutatis mutandis, this remark applies to the passage 
immediately to be adduced. 


49 


"Markus Conception of Our Lord 

together is distinctly made to refer to Christ, by a 
change in the pronouns from the form they bear in 
the original — though the reference in the original is 
to Jehovah: and this by an inevitable consequence 
carries with it the reference of the latter also to 
Christ.®® But in the original of Isaiah 40^ again 
the reference of the term ‘ Lord ’ is to Jehovah. 
Here we see Jesus then identified by means of 
the common term ‘ Lord ’ with Jehovah.®^ Of 
course it may be said that it is not Jesus who 
is identified with Jehovah, but the coming of Jesus 
which is identified with the “ advent of Jehovah ” 
to redeem His people predicted so frequently in 
the Old Testament.®® And this explanation might 

2® So Sven Herner {op. cit., pp. 7 et seq., cf. pp. 4, 5) solidly argues. 

21 Cf. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O. T., p. 262: “That 

splendid passage, Is which speaks of Jehovah coming in 

strength, that is, in His fulness, and feeding His flock like a shepherd, 
s interpreted in the Gospels of the Son. It was in the Son, or as the 
Son, that Jehovah so manifested Himself. By the Old Testament 
prophet a distinction in the Godhead was not thought of; but subse- 
ijuent revelation casts light on the preceding. The Lord, the Re- 
deemer and Judge, is God in the Son.” 

22 According to Dr. A. B. Davidson’s representation this Is as far 
IS the Old Testament writers themselves go with regard to the Mes- 
siah. They came to look upon the coming of the Messianic King as 
he coming of Jehovah; but not as if the Messiah were Jehovah, but 
Dnly as if in the Messiah Jehovah came to His people. Cf. e.g. The 
Theology of the O. T., p. 385: “It may be doubtful if the O. T. went 
so far as to identify the Messiah with Jehovah or to represent the Mes- 
siah as divine. It went the length of saying, however, that Jehovah 
would be present in His fulness in the Messiah, so that the Messiah 
night fitly be named ‘God with us’ and ‘Mighty God.’” He adds: 
‘ It was not a difficult step to take, to infer that the Messiah was Him- 
self God, and that because He was God He was Saviour; and then 
:o apply even those passages which speak of Jehovah’s coming in per- 
son to His coming as Messiah.” It was this step that (if it remained 
to be taken) was taken by our Lord and the evangelists. 


52 The Designations of Our Lord 

more credible that Mark claimed for Him an even 
more supernatural descent as an adult from heaven? 
Mark, in a word, leaves the exposition of these things 
to others. It is Matthew and Luke who complete the 
story by the record of the supernatural birth. It is 
. John who develops all the implications of Jesus’ pre- 
V, existence. But all that these bring to expression in 
their fuller accounts is implied in Mark’s narrative, in 
which he incidentally tells us of the dignity of that 
person’s nature whose wonderful career he has under- 
taken to describe. And there is no reason why we 
should suppose him ignorant of the implications of his 
own facts, especially when his purpose in writing did 
not call for the explication of these implications. In 
a word, it seems clear enough that there lies behind 
the narrative of Mark not an undeveloped christology, 
Vbut only an unexpressed one. To give expression to 
his christology did not lie within the limits of the 
task he had undertaken.^® 

23 Cf. a careful precis of Mark’s Conception of the Verson and Office 
of Christ in a section of Dr. Swete’s Introduction to his commentary on 
Mark: pp. xc-xcv. If we should put together, simply, the elements of 
Mark’s christology, perhaps it might be expressed as follows: Jesus 

was a man, appointed by God Messiah, and endowed for His Messianic 
^ tasks; but not a mere man, but a superhuman being, in rank and dig- 
nity above angels (13^^), who “came” to earth for a mission. This 
mission was not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and accordingly 
involved humiliation and suffering: but a humiliation and suffering 
not for Himself but vicarious (lo^®, cf. 2^'^). He prosecuted this min- 
Cistry by a career of preaching (1^®), and in the end died and rose 
again that He might give His life a ransom for many (10^^). Mean- 
time, being God’s beloved Son, the heavenly King of God’s own King- 
dom predicted in Daniel, the Lord of the House (13^®, cf. ii^) and 
no servant (12®, cf. 9'^), not merely David’s son but David’s Lord 
(i 235) who is Jehovah Himself (i^). He had in His hands all author- 
■’ ity (i22 1 27 210 228 ^^41 ^43^ (,f. 1^1 2^ 9 ~^) y and exercised all divine 
prerogatives — controlling evil spirits, the laws of nature, death itself, — 


'Markus Conception of Our Lord 53 

We must guard ourselves especially from imagining 
lat the recognition found in Mark of the deity of 
Mark’s Jesus is in any way clouded by the em- 
Conception of phasis he places on the Messiahship of 
le Messiahship ^g fundamental fact of His 

lission. We have already had occasion to point out 
lat the Messiahship and the deity of Jesus are not 
lutually exclusive conceptions. Even on the purely 
ewish plane it was possible to conceive the Messiah 

supernatural person: and He is so conceived, for 
sample, in the Similitudes of Enoch and the Visions 
f 4 Esdras. The recognition of the deity of Jesus 
y Mark — and by Jesus as reported by Mark — in no 
^ay interferes with the central place taken in Mark’s 
arrative — and in Jesus’ thought of Himself as re- 
orted by Mark, — by our Lord’s Messianic claims. It 
nly deepens the conception of the Messiahship which 
; presented as the conception which Jesus fulfilled, 
"he result is merely that the Christian movement be- 
omes, from the point of view of the history of the 
dessianic ideal, an attempt to work a change in the 
urrent conception of the Messianic office — a change 
Eich involved its broadening to cover a wider area 
f Old Testament prophecy and its deepening to em- 
ody spiritual rather than p revailin gly external aspira- 
!ons.^^ We have already noted that our Lord’s 

ading the heart and the future (9^^ and forgiving sin on 

irth, and after His dying rose again and in His own proper time will 
turn in the clouds of heaven with the angels to establish the King- 
)m and judge the world. 

24 Cf. Wellhausen, Mark, p. 71 : “I can find this at least not incred- 
le, that Jesus was pleased with the name of the Jewish ideal, and 
;t changed its contents, and that not merely with respect to the Mes- 
ah, but analogously also with respect to the Kingdom of God.” How 


54 The Designations of Our Lord 

preference for His self-designation of the title ‘ Son 
of Man ’ over other more current titles is indicatory 
of His enlarged and enriched conception of the Mes- 
siahship : and we have already hinted that even the 
title ‘ Son of Man ’ only partly suggests the contents 
of His conception, elements of which found their 
adumbration in yet other portions of Old Testament 
prediction. Among these further elements of Old 
Testament prophecy taken up into and given validity 
in His conception, there are especially notable those 
that portray the Righteous Servant of Jehovah, cul- 
minating in the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and those that 
set forth what has appropriately been called the “ Ad- 
vent of Jehovah,” — the promises, in a word, of the 
intervention of Jehovah Himself to redeem His people. 

Wellhausen would have such a remark understood, however, may be 
dcommodiously ^learned from his section on “ the Jewish and the Chris- 
tian Messiah ” in the closing pages of his Einleitung in die drei ersten 
Evangelien (1905). The Christian conception of the Messiah, such as 
lies on the pages of Mark, for example — that paradoxical contradiction 
of the gallows-Messiah, formed on the basis of the actual crucifixion of 
Jesus — is of course the product of the time subsequent to the death of 
Jesus; but its existence would be inexplicable without the assumption 
that Jesus was supposed by His followers to be the Messiah, although 
of course in His life-time it was not this Christian conception but the 
ordinary Jewish conception of the Messiah which they attributed to 
Him. The attitude of Jesus Himself to this ascription of Messiahship 
to Him Wellhausen finds it somewhat difficult to determine (p. 92). 
He is certain that Jesus did not follow the method of the Pseudochrists 
and openly proclaim Himself Messiah; but he thinks that there are 
indications that He did not repel the notion when applied to Him — 
though, of course, this involved an “ accommodation,” as He was by 
no means prepared to meet the expectations connected with the title. 
It was no doubt, then, as a religious regenerator, not as a political 
restorer, that He accepted the title; but this remained at least so far 
within Jewish limits as not to involve that complete renunciation of 
Judaism which “ lies in the conception of the gallows-Messiah, of the 
Messiah rejected by the Jews,” of the writers of the New Testament. 


Markus Conception of Our Lord 55 

It may be very easy to do less than justice to the Mes- 
sianic Ideal current among the Jewish people at the 
time of our Lord, centering as It did In the hope of 
the establishment of an external kingdom endowed 
with the irresis tible might of God. Of course this 
Kingdom of God was conceived as a kingdom of 
righteousness; and it may be possible to show that 
most of the Items that enter into the Old Testament 
predictions, including that of redemption from sin, 
were not wholly neglected In one or another form 
of Its expression. The difference between It and the 
Messianic conception developed by Jesus and His fol- 
lowers may thus almost be represented as merely a 
difference of emphasis.*® But a difference of emphasis 
may be far from a small difference; and the effect 
of the difference in this case certainly amounted to a 
difference in kind. This new Messianic Ideal Is un- 
mistakably apparent In Mark’s conception and In the 
conception of Jesus as represented by Mark’s record 
of His sayings. We can trace In Mark’s record 
the Influence of factors recalling the Righteous Serv- 
ant (lo^® 9^* 14*^ and the Divine Redeemer (i^) 
as well as the Danielle Son of Man.*® But these fac- 

On this general subject see two or three very strong pages in 
Dalman, Words, pp. 295-299: cf. Stanton, 134. 

26 Speaking of the conception embodied in the title ‘ Son of Man ’ by 
Dur Lord as reported in the Gospels, Charles {The Book of Enoch, pp. 
312-317) argues that it included in it all the ideas suggested by the 
Servant of Jehovah of Isaiah, and therefore so far commends Bartlet’s 
:onstruction {Expositor, Dec. 1892). Says Charles (p. 316): “This 
:ransformed conception of the Son of Man is thus permeated through- 
)ut by the Isaian conception of the Servant of Jehovah; but though 
:he Enochic conception is fundamentally transformed, the transcendent 
daims underlying it are not for a moment forgotten.” If we may be 
permitted to find the preadumbration of the “ transcendent ” element of 


56 The Designations of Our Lord 

tors attain fuller expression in the records of the other 
evangelists. So that here too we find them bringing 
out into clearness what already lies in Mark rather 
than adding anything really new to his presentation. 

this conception, not in Enoch but in the O. T. representation of the 
Advent of Jehovah, Charles’ conception of the Messianic ideal of our 
Lord, for the expression of which He chose the term ‘ Son of Man,^ 
seems to us generally just. It is — for whatever reason — essentially a 
synthesis of the three lines of prediction embodied in the Is aiani c 
“ Se rvant of Jeho vah,” the Danielic “ Son of Man,” and the general 
T. “ Advent o f Jehovah,” along with which the other lines of 
prophecy — such as those embodied in the “ Davidic King ” — also find 
their place. 


THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN 
MATTHEW 


When we turn to Matthew’s Gospel, and observe 
the designations applied in it to our Lord, what chiefly 
strikes us is that it runs in this matter on precisely the 
same lines with Mark, with only this difference, that 
what is more or less latent in Mark becomes fully 
^patent in Matthew. 

The narrative name of our Lord is in Matthew 
(as in Mark) the simple ‘ Jesus’; which (as in Mark) 
The Narrative never occurs as other than the narra- 
Name, and tive name, with the single exception 
Exceptions (which is no exception) that in an- 
nouncing His birth the Angel of the Lord is reported 
as commanding, “ Thou shalt call His name Jesus ” 
(i^^). And not only does Matthew, like Mark, re- 
serve the simple ‘ Jesus ’ for his narrative name, but, 
also like Mark, he practically confines himself to it. 
The only outstanding exceptions to this are that Mat- 
thew sets (like Mark) the solemn Messianic designa- 
tion ‘Jesus Christ’ in the heading of his Gospel (i^), 
and follows this up (unlike Mark) by repeating it both 
at the opening of his formal narrative (i^®), and at 
an important new starting point in his narrative 
( i62i V. r.^ .1 employs a certain fulness of des- 

1 In all tliese three places ’’lyjffoo? Xpifft 6 <; seems to be used as a proper 
name. Meyer (i^, p. 51) says: “In the Gospels Xpiard^ stands as a 
proper name only in Mt Mk Jno . . . here also 

57 


58 The Designations of Our Lord 

ignation throughout the formal genealogy with which 
the Gospel begins, by which he places the ‘ Jesus ’ of 
whom he is to speak clearly before the readers and 
clearly as the Messiah. “ The book of the generation 
of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abra- 
ham ” (i^) is the phraseology with which he opens 
this genealogy: he closes it with the words, “Mary 
of whom was born Jesus surnamed Christ” 
and in the summary which he adjoins he calculates the 
generations “ unto Christ ” (i^^) — a designation which 
meets us again at ii^. Thus Matthew in beginning 
his Gospel leaves no room for doubting that he pur- 
poses to present the story of Jesus’ life as the life of 
the Messiah; but as soon as he has given that formal 
emphatic enunciation, he takes up the narrative with 
the simple ‘ Jesus ’ and with only the two breaks at 
ii^ and carries it on with the simple ‘Jesus’ 

to the end.^ The simple ‘Jesus’ occurs thus in his 

(cf. Mk 1^), in the superscription, the whole of the great name’/Ty^roo? 
Xpc(Tr6? is highly appropriate, nay, necessary.” 

2 The name ‘Jesus’ occurs in Matthew about 149 times. Of these, 
on nine occasions it is used in combination with additional designa- 
tions (‘Jesus Christ,’ i6~^; ‘Jesus surnamed Christ,’ 27'^’^ 

‘Jesus the Nazarene,’ 26^1; ‘Jesus the Galilean,’ 2669; ‘the prophet 
Jesus who is from Nazareth of Galilee,’ 21II; ‘Jesus the King of the 
Jews,’ 2767). The simple ‘Jesus’ occurs therefore about 140 times; 
and always is Matthew’s own except i2i. It is according to Moulton 
and Geden anarthrous in the following passages: (i^) 1i6.21.25 
(l621) 178 2017.30 2i1.12 2661.69,71,75 2717,22,37 286 . 9 (l8[2o] in all). 
Two of these instances (178 and aoU) may, however, be eliminated as 
probably false readings. ‘Jesus Christ,’ iS is properly without the 
article, both because that is the regular usage with proper names in 
headings, and because that is the regular usage with the first mention 
of a proper name; 1621 is to be looked upon in accordance with this 
as a new beginning; while at the article is present because it takes 
up the ‘Jesus Christ’ of ii again, further explained at as the 
“Jesus surnamed Christ,” and hence is almost equivalent to ‘"this Jesus 
Christ.” In ii® 2717.22 2669.71 2731, the article is properly absent on 


The Designations in Matthew 59 

narrative about 139 times, and is replaced only by the 
compound ‘ Jesus Christ ’ ( 16^^ cf. , and by 
the simple ‘Christ’ ii^ cf. i^®), each, at most 
three times. 

In this sparing use of ‘ Jesus Christ ’ and ‘ Christ ’ 
by Matthew himself, the term ‘ Christ ’ appears to be 
‘Christ* employed not as an appellative but 
as a Proper as a proper name. In 2^, no doubt, 
Name Christ ” is used in the general 

sense of “the Messiah”: Herod did not inquire of 
“ the chief priests and scribes of the people ” where 
Jesus was born, but where, according to prophecy, “ the 
; Messiah should be born”: but just on that account 
there is no direct reference to Jesus at all here. The 
commentators are very generally inclined to look upon 
the use of “ the Christ ” in 1 as a similar instance, 
as if what John had heard in the prison was that “ the 
works of the Messiah ” — such works, that is, as were 
expected of the Messiah, — were occurring abroad; and 
accordingly sent and asked Jesus whether He was in- 
deed “ the Coming One.”® Attractive as this explana- 

the general rule that it is always omitted as superfluous in the presence 
of a defining appositional phrase with the article (Blass, p. 152; Moul- 
ton-Winer, 140-1). Perhaps even 28® may be classed here. Blass 
(152) supposes the omission of the article at 28^ regular, on the ground 
that no anaphora is conceivable there. In 20^® the article seems want- 
ing because (present, * passeth') the clause is a quotation from the 
popular mouth, and the use of ‘ Jesus ’ does not range anaphorically 
with preceding instances; possibly 28® may be so explained. In 121,26 
certainly an article would be out of place. There remain 14I 2i^'^2 
2651,75, 3Q explanation of which does not readily present itself. The 
use of the article with personal names seems to have been capricious in 
the Greek of all ages (cf. J. H. Moulton, Grammar, p. 83 ; Moulton’s 
Winer, 140; Schmiedel-Winer, 153; Blass, 152). 

2 “John the Baptist,” says Holtzmann {Hand-Corn., 133), “was 
almost persuaded that Jesus could fulfil the Messianic purpose, that 
His works were therefore of the Messianic variety roo Xpi(iTou)t* 


6 o 


The Designations of Our Lord 

tion is, however, it scarcely seems to fit in with the 
connection. Jesus’ exhibition of His works to the mes- 
sengers would hardly in these circumstances have been 
an answer to John’s inquiry, so much as rather a refusal 
to give an answer. And the connection of the pronoun 
“ Him ” in verse 3 with its antecedent “ Christ ” of 
verse 2 appears to require us to take that term not as 
a general but as a particular one: John surely is not 
said to have sent to “ the Messiah ” and inquired of 
“ Him ” whether He was the Messiah. In other words 
if “the Christ” (o XpiaroQ) can be taken as a proper 
name, designating Jesus, surely it must be so taken here. 
And that it can be so taken and is so taken by Matthew, 
its use in appears to show. 

“ The Christ ” in also has sometimes, to be 

“The works which Jesus does,” says Wellhausen in loc., “rouse doubts 
in John whether He is really the Christ; for he had expected from the 
Christ something wholly different. Just on this account Matthew calls 
them the works of the Christ; . . . the Baptist turns, however, 
with his doubts to Jesus Himself and leaves the decision to Him.” 
“ The nvorks/’ comments J. A. Alexander, “ i.e. the miracles (Lk 7 ^®) 
of Christ, not of Jesus as a private person, but of the Messiah, which 
He claimed to be, . . . The meaning then is that John heard in 
prison of miraculous performances appearing and purporting to be 
wrought by the Messiah.” These commentators seem to suppose that 
Mt is to be rendered somewhat like this: “But John, because he 
heard in his prison through the medium of his disciples of [talk about] 
the works of the Messiah, sent through the medium of his disciples to 
* ask Him, Art thou the Coming One, or are we to look for another?” 
The query arises, however, to whom John sent this inquiry? To “the 
Messiah”? Or to Jesus? What, then, is the antecedent of the abrih} 
As the abrm is Jesus, so its antecedent rob Xpurrob is Jesus: and the 
concrete rather than the abstract seems more natural. Why not then 
translate: “Having heard of the works of Christ he sent and asked 
Him”? The solution seems to depend on whether J XpuTr6<;\s used 
always as a pure appellative in Mat., or sometimes as a nomen pro^ 
prium, or at least as a quasi nomen proprium. But the answer to that 
is scarcely doubtful (e.g. 


The Designations in Matthew 6i 

sure, been understood as the general term, “ the Mes- 
siah.”^ But this throws it out of range not only with 
the other names in this simple summary, wherein the 
corresponding terms in the accounting are most simply 
given — Abraham, David, the Babylonian deportation; 
but also with the precedent phrase, ‘ Jesus, surnamed 
Christ,’ of verse i6 to which it refers back and which 
it takes up and repeats. For that the ‘ Christ ’ in this 
phrase is a simple proper name is not only suggested 
by the absence of the article with it, but is indicated 
by the currency of a similar mode of speech in the 
case of like instances of double names.® It appears 
then that the addition, “ surnamed Christ,” is intended 
in this passage as a formal identification of the par- 

*So, for example, Weiss, in his reworking of Meyer. He supposes 
that the summary here is not merely a mnemonic device, but rests on a 
deeply-laid symbolism. There were fourteen generations from Abra- 
ham to the establishment of the kingdom; and fourteen more from its 
establishment to its loss: should there not be just fourteen more from 
its destruction to its re-establishment in the Messiah ? “ It is accord- 

ingly,” he says, “ also beyond dispute that we should translate — ‘ up to 
the Messiah.’” Similarly (he says) Kubel and Nosgen. This carries 
with it the appellative sense in and 27^’^. 

5 Cf. Dalman {Words, 303): “In Mt 27i7>22 pilate uses the ex- 
pression "Ifjffou? 6 Xsyofxsvoq Xpi(Tr6<;. That is not intended to mean 
‘ Jesus, who is supposed to be the Messiah,’ but with the usual sense of 
this idiom, ‘ Jesus surnamed Christ.’ ” The same form is seen in Mt 
ii®, and in 6 Xeyofievot^ IUrpoi; 4^® lo^. Cf. Meyer’s note on 

ii®, where he remarks that S Xeyopevof expresses neither doubt, nor 
assurance, but means simply <vjho hears the name of Christ (4^® lo^ 
27!'^) ; for this name, which became His from the official designation, 
was the distinctive name of this Jesus.” Exact parallels to “ Jesus sur- 
named Christ” (Mt i^® 27^^’--) occur in N. T. only at Mt 4^® lo^, “ Si- 
mon surnamed Peter”; Jno ii^® 20^^ 21^, “Thomas surnamed Didy- 
mus”; Col 4^^ “Jesus surnamed Justus.” Its equivalent in such forms 
as “a man named” (Mt 9® 26®>i^ 27I®, Mk 15^ Lk 22^^), or a “city 
called” (Mt 2-^, Jno 4® 19^^) » or “a place called” (Mt 26®® 27®®, 

Jno 5®, Acts 3® 6®) are not infrequent. 


62 


The Designations of Our Lord 

ticular Jesus in question;® and the employment of 
“ Christ ” instead of “ Jesus ” in the subsequent sum- 
mary (verse 17) is perhaps best explained in the in- 
terests of this clearness of designation, the article 
accompanying it having the force of “ the aforesaid 
Christ.” 

Matthew thus notifies us at the beginning of his 
narrative that the ‘ Jesus ’ with whom he is to deal 
has another name, to wit, ‘ Christ ’ 

Why so and so prepares the way for an 

Seldom Used ^ , r 1 • u 

occasional employment or this other 

name ii^). Our only surprise is that he employs 
it so seldom. The account to be given of this is prob- 
ably that, after all, in the circles for which Matthew 
wrote, this ‘ Jesus ’ had become so unapproachably the 
only ‘ Jesus ’ who would come to mind on the mention 
of the name, that the more distinctive surname ‘ Christ ’ 
was not needed in speaking of Him to secure His 
identification; it is employed, therefore, only when 
some suggestion of His Messiahship was intruding 
itself upon the mind, as is the case certainly at ii^’^ 
and no doubt also at and we may add equally so 

® So also Fritzsche, in loc., who translates: “Jesus, whose cognomen 
is Christ.” “ Thus,” he continues, “ Jesus is by these words discrimi- 
nated from other men of the same name, and Xpi(Tr6<; does not declare 
Him Messiah, but as in verse is His name.” According to this in- 
terpretation, he would have passages of similar character explained, 
e.g. Mt 271^ 22] Jesus quern Christi nomine ornant *’ — and so 

Mk 15^, Mt 26^^ 9^ 26^»36 2733^ jno 1912,17^ Acts 32, Eph 2^^, Simi- 
larly Keil, on i^®. 

Cf. Zahn, in loc.: “That Matthew, who elsewhere in the narra- 
tive statedly speaks of Jesus by His proper name, writes rou Xpcffzou 
here instead, is explained just as in from his purpose to give brief 
and emphatic expression to the fact that the deeds which are spoken of 
indicate Him as the Messiah.” 


The Designations in Matthew 63 

in (cf. “the Son of David”), and 16“^ (cf. v. 
20), where the compound ‘ Jesus Christ ’ occurs. This 
is to recognize, of course, that the surname ‘Christ’ 
was the name of dignity as distinguished from the 
simple name of designation, and preserved, even when 
employed as a proper name, its implications of Mes- 
siahship; but this is in any event a matter of course 
and should not be confounded with the question of its 
appellative use. The employment of the term ‘ Christ ’ 
as a proper name of Jesus so far from losing sight of 
His claim to Messiahship, accordingly, bears witness to 
so complete an acquiescence in that claim on the part of 
the community in which this usage of the term was cur- 
rent, that the very official designation was conceived as 
His peculiar property and His proper designation (cf. 
2 ^ 17 - 22 ) .8 sparingness of Matthew’s employment 

of it, on the other hand, manifests how little our Lord’s 
dignity as Messiah needed to be insisted on in the 
circles for which Matthew wrote, and how fully the 
simple name ‘ Jesus ’ could convey to the readers all 
that was wrapped up in His personality. 

Besides this sparing use of ‘ Jesus Christ * and 
‘ Christ,’ then, Matthew makes use in his own person 

Jesus* of no other designation in speaking of 

Popular our Lord than the simple ‘ Jesus,’ al- 

Name though on three occasions he adduces 

with reference to Him designations which he finds in 
the prophets: ‘Immanuel’ ‘Lord’ (3^), ‘the 

Nazarene ’ (2^^). The implications of the first two 

® The climax of this development was reached, of course, when the 
followers of Jesus were called simply “ Christians ” — which occurred 
first, we are told, at Antioch (Acts Cf. art. “Christian” in 

Hastings’ Diet, of the Bible. 


64 The Designations of Our Lord 

of these we may leave for later reference. The last 
bears witness to the fact that Jesus was currently 
known by His contemporaries as “ a Nazarene,” that 
is to say, that His ordinary distinctive designation 
among the people in the midst of whom His ministry 
was passed would be, ‘ Jesus the Nazarene,’ as the 
maid, indeed, is recorded to have spoken of Him in 
the court of the high priest (26^^). This exact desig- 
nation, however, does not elsewhere occur in Matthew’s 
narrative, although its broader equivalent, from the 
(Standpoint of a Jerusalemite, ‘ Jesus the Galilean,’ is 
represented as employed by the companion maid (26®^), 
and the multitude seeking to do Him honor is rep- 
resented as describing Him with great fulness as “ the 
prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee ” (21^^). The 
simple ‘ Jesus,’ as has been already pointed out. He 
is not represented as called, except by the angel an- 
nouncing His birth (i“^), but Pilate is quoted as des- 
ignating Him by His full name, “ Jesus, surnamed 
Christ” (27^'^’^^), and we are told that there was set 
over His head on the cross the legend, “ This is Jesus, 
the King of the Jews” (27^^). In both instances the 
adjunct is, no doubt, scornful, though it is less ob- 
viously so on Pilate’s lips than in the inscription on 
the cross. 

The employment by Pilate of the full name, ‘ Jesus, 
surnamed Christ,’ seems to bear witness that already 
Early Use of before Jesus’ death He had been so pre- 
‘ Christ ’ as a vailingly Spoken of as the Messiah that 
Proper Name official designation might seem to 

have become part of His proper name. The alterna- 
tives are to suppose that Matthew does not report the 
exact words of Pilate, who may be thought rather to 


The Designations in Matthew 65 

have used the phrase appearing in the parallel passage 
in Mark — “ the King of the Jews or else that the 
term Christ is employed here in its full official sense 
as an appellative, — “ Jesus who is commonly called 
the Christ.”^® The former, however, is a purely gratui- 
tous suggestion; (Mark and Matthew do not contra- 
^(^dict but supplement one another. And the latter seems 
'"^(not quite consonant with the language used. There 
seems, moreover, really no reason why we may not 
suppose Pilate to have caught the term “ Christ ” as 
applied to Jesus, and to have understood it as a proper 
name, especially when we are expressly told by Luke 
(23^) that the accusation which was lodged against 
Him took the form that He had proclaimed Himself 
to be “ Christ, a King.” Nor, indeed, does there seem 
any compelling reason why it may not already have 
been employed of Jesus by His followers sufficiently 
constantly to have begun to be attached to Him as at 
least a quasi-proper name (cf. ii^). On heathen ears, 
as we know, the term “ Christ ” was apt to strike as 
a proper name and, in any event, the title ‘ Christ ’ 
began very early, at least in Christian circles, to be 
^ appropriated to Jesus in much the connotation of a 
'.-proper name, because men did not wait for His death 
"^before they began to hope it would be He who should 
deliver Israel.^^ If we may suppose, as in any event 
we must, that even as a proper name, or as a quasi- 
proper name, there clung to the term ‘ Christ ’ a sense 
of its honorific character, it would appear quite possible 

® So Dalman. 

10 So e.g. Alexander and Weiss. 

Suetonius, Chresto impulsore,” and note Acts 

12 Lk 2421. 


66 


The Designations of Our Lord 

that Pilate, “ knowing that it was from envy that they 
had delivered Him up,” meant by giving Jesus His 
full and evidently honorific name, to play upon the 
multitude, that they should demand “ Jesus, surnamed 
Christ,” rather than Barabbasd® 

Like Mark, Matthew represents Jesus as customarily 
addressed by the simple current honorific titles. The 
Simple actual Aramaic form, ‘ Rabbi,’ how- 
Honorific ever, oddly enough, is retained only in 
Addresses repeating the only two remarks recorded 
in Matthew’s narrative as made to the Lord by Judas 
Iscariot (26^^’^®).^* Its usual Greek rendering, 

‘Teacher’ {dcddaxale) ^ also takes a relatively infe- 
rior place in Matthew, being largely supplanted by 
the more Greek ‘ Lord ’ ( ^'\oce ) , perhaps as the 

representative of the Aramaic Mdri}^ A tendency 
seems even observable to reserve ‘Teacher’ {dcdda- 
xaXe ) for the non-committal, respectful address of 
those who were not followers of Jesus (12^® 22^®’^^’^®; 
9I1 19^®). It is employed, however, in 

If the reading ‘ Jesus Barabbas ’ in Mt 27131'^ could be accepted, 
it would supply a reason why Pilate should have employed the full 
name ‘Jesus surnamed Christ.’ He would have wished to ascertain 
which Jesus the people wanted. But see A. Plummer in Hastings’ 
DicL of the Bible, art. ‘Barabbas’ (i. 245). 

1^ The contrast between the address of the other disciples, “ Is it I, 
Lord ( xbpie. ) ?” (verse 22), and that of Judas, “Is it I, Rabbi?” is 
marked. It imports that Judas, though among our Lord’s closest fol- 
lowers, was not of them: they recognize Him as their Lord, he only as 
his teacher. But it remains obscure why in the case of Judas only 
Matthew uses the Aramaic “ Rabbi,” rather than, as in other cases 
of similar contrast, the current Greek form, diddffxaXe. 

13 Wellhausen on Mt 23'^'i3 (p. 117) remarks: “We observe that the 
address or diddaxaXe is claimed here for Jesus and for Him 

alone, whereas elsewhere In Matthew and Luke it is too low for Him 
and is replaced hy xopie (mari).” 


N \v 


The Designations in Matthew 67 

the case of a scribe who came to Jesus and declared 
his purpose to become His constant follower (8^®, cf. 
19^®). And our Lord places it on His disciples’ lips 
when He instructs them to “ go into the city to such 
a man, and say unto him, The Teacher says. My time 
is at hand; I keep the passover with my disciples at 
thy house” (26^®). Similarly in didactic statements 
He refers to the relation between Him and 

His followers as well under the terms of ‘ Teacher and 
disciple ’ as under those of ‘ servant and Lord,’ ‘ the 
Householder and the household ’ : and forbids His fol- 
lowers to be called ‘ Rabbi,’ because He alone is their 
‘ Teacher,’ as pointedly as He forbids them to be called 
‘ guides,’ because He, the Christ, alone is their ‘ Guide ’ 
(23^-^^). 

Two new terms are brought before us in these last- 
quoted declarations, — ‘ House-master ’ Mt 

10^^ 24^^; cf. Mk 13^^) and ‘Guide’ {xad 7 ]yr^rij< 7 -, 
23^^ only in N. T.) ; both of which seem to have higher 
implications than ‘Teacher’ {dcdd(TxaXo(:) ^ although 
both are placed in the closest connection with it as 
its practical synonyms 23^’^^). ‘Guide’ 

{^adrjT^Tij^) occurs indeed nowhere elsed® and we 
can say of it only that our Lord chose it as one of 

^®The source of the term xadrjYi^TTj^ has been much discussed. It 
seems to have been in use in the Greek philosophical schools in the 
sense of Master, Teacher (see Wettstein in loc.). The Hebraists 
(Wunsche, Delitzsch, Salkinson) are inclined to seek for it an Aramaic 
original, miD (cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Corn., 251): but on this see 
Dalman, W ords, pp. 335-340. It is a deeper question whether it may 
not be a Messianic title in accordance with the preservation of such a 
designation — ^ Hathahy ‘the Guide’ — among the Samaritans: see Stan- 
ton, Jevnsh and Christian Messiah, 127. There is no rational ground 
for simply casting the verse out of Matthew (Blass, Wellhausen, Holtz- 
mann, even Dalman). 


68 The Designations of Our Lord 

the designations which expressed His exclusive rela- 
tion to His disciples. He was their only Teacher, 
Guide, Master and Lord. But ‘ House-master ’ 
(ocxod£(77r6r/^(:) seems to have been rather a favorite 
figurative expression with Him, to set 
t^e^^Hou^e forth His relation to His disciples, 
whether in didactic or in parabolic state- 
ment. In one of His parables, indeed, it is not 
He who is the ‘ H^use-master ’ , but 

God,^"^ while He is God’s Son and Heir (21^^ ) 

in distinction from the slaves which make up other- 
wise the household; and the uniqueness of His rela- 
tion to the Father as His Son is thrown up into the 
strongest light, and is further emphasized in the 
application, where Jesus speaks of Himself as the 
chief cornerstone on which the Kingdom of God 
is built (verse 42) and on their relation to which 
the destinies of men hang (verse 44). In other 
parables, however (13“^ etseq., etseq.^^ ‘House- 
master ’ (oho^eanoTT]^') is Jesus Himself, and the func- 
tions that are ascribed to Him as such have especial 
reference to the destinies of men. As the ‘ House- 
master’ {olxodzar.or/]^) He distributes to men the rewards 
of their labors in accordance with His own will, doing 
as He will with His own (20^^) : and bears with the 
tares in the field in which He has sown good corn until 
the time of harvest shall come, when He will send the 
reapers — who are “ His Angels ” — to gather them out 
and burn them with fire (13^^ ^ 

word, to the ‘ House-master ’(o^xo^£<T;r6r;yc) , who is ex- 


In 13*^2 the ohodsarzoTTj^; is “every scribe who has been made 
a disciple in the kingdom of heaven.” And in 24^2 the oixodeffTzoTT^^ 
is the watching follower on earth who waits for His coming. 


The Designations in Matthew 69 

pressly identified with ‘the Son of Man’ (13^®) the 
inalienably divine function of Judge of the earth is 
assigned, and it is with this high connotation in His 
mind that He speaks of Himself as such, over against 
His “ domestics,” when He warns them not to expect 
better treatment at the hands of men than He has re- 
ceived (10^^). The implications of sovereignty inherent 
in the term run up in its application therefore into the 
sovereignty of God : as ‘ House-master ’ {ohodeanozy ]^) , 
Jesus is pictured as our divine Lordd® 

If ‘Teacher’ {dtddaxale) somewhat sinks in value 
as an honorific form of address in Matthew as 
, , compared with Mark, its more Greek 

anAddre^ equivalent, ‘Lord’ on the 

other hand, is more frequently and va- 
riously employed by Matthew than by Markd^ It 

On the meaning of olxods(nz 6 rrj<s see T. D. Woolsey, Bibliotheca 
Sacra, July, i86i, p. 599. means “the absolute owner of 

things . . . as . . . de(nt 6 rf)(s oixca?, the master of a house or 

household; whence the oixode<n: 6 rrj<s of the sacred writers.” Cf. 
Trench, Synonyms of N. T., xxviii., p. 91. 

On the use of xopis in Matthew and its relations to other forms of 
address, cf. Zahn, on Mt. 7-1 (p. 315, note 235). Kupie, he tells us, 
is employed “ as an address to Jesus on the part of people who still 
stood at a distance from Jesus, commonly in seeking help from Him, 
in Mt 928 (v. 27, Son of David), 1522,27 along 

with Son of David), 17^^ jno 411,15,19,49 ^7 534 ^ 36 , 38 . on the 

part of male and female disciples at Mt 82 i> 2 s 1428,30 1522 1^4 ig2i 
2622, Jno 668 „ 3 , 12 , 21 , 27 , 32 , 34,39 136,9,25,86 145,8,22. Although the 

disciples of Jesus also address Him by diddaxals: (Jno 13^6-16^ of. 
io 24 ; examples: Mk 468 988 13I. pa^^i, Mk 9® ii2i, Jno 188,49 481 ^2 
II®), the distinction is, however, to be noted that this address is used 
also by His opponents, and especially by the scribes (in Mt 8^® no doubt 
by a friendly scribe in approaching Him, but still one who did not 
become a disciple, in clear distinction from 8^1, cf. 12®® 19I® 22^6*24, 3 « 
Jno 32: and by Judas, Mt 2625,49), ^hile on the other hand xbpteis 
never so used, since from the very nature of the case it is the address 


70 The Designations of Our Lord 

appears upon the lips alike of applicants for our Lord’s 
mercy, whether Jewish (8^ 9^^ 17^^ or heathen 

(86,8 J ^22,25 1^27^^ q£ discipleS (8^^’^^ 1^28,30 

1 522 j,^4 jg2i 26^^) ; but never on the lips of one who 
Is not in some sense a follower of Jesus, either as 
suitor for His grace or as His professed disciple. 
‘ Lord ’ ( ''iopce ) is accordingly a higher mode of 
designation in Matthew than ‘Teacher’ (^dcddaxah), 
and imports a closer bond of connection with Jesus 
and a more profound and operative recognition of 
His authority. It occurs some twenty-one times^° as 
a form of address to Jesus, and, besides once as an 
address to God (ii“^), only a single time (to Pilate, 
27^^), outside of parables, as an address to anyone 
else. Even in its parabolic use, indeed, its reference 
is always (except 21^^ only) either to God ( 1 325, [26] ,27,31 
1 832,34 2 j 42 ^ ^ 24 ^ qj. Jesus pictured in positions of 

supreme authority ([13^^] 20^ 


of the servant to his master and ruler, among the Orientals and later 
the Hellenists and after Domitian also the Romans the address of 
subjects to governors, occasionally also of the son to the father (e.g. 
Berlin Aegypt. Ur hind. 8i6, i. 28, 821, i) and always an honorific 
expression of subjection to those addressed (cf. Mt 22*4 saq.)^ or at least 
of dependence upon them at the moment. Thus Pilate Is so addressed 
by the Sanhedrin (Mt 27®^), but also Philip by the Greeks (Jno la^i), 
the gardener by the Magdalen (Jno 2 q 4^), in each case in preferring 
a request.” When Zahn says (on the same page) that “ it was only 
after Jesus’ death ” that xupis “ took on in the Christian community a 
more precise and richer content,” he seems not to be bearing In mind 
the Implications of such passages as 21 ^ 24^2 2243-45^ and even 
itself, though Zahn explains that passage otherwise. It is clear from 
even 21^ alone that Jesus was constantly called ‘Lord’ and that in a 
very high connotation. 

20 32,6,8,21,25 ^28 1428,30 1525,27 i622 174,15 Ig21 2Q30.33 2622, cf. 
25.37,44 721,21. Also 1522 2 q 31. 


The Designations in Matthew 71 

[ 20 ], 21 . 21 ,[ 22 ]. 23 . 23 .[ 24 ], 26 ^ cf. |3g 

course, that this supreme authority is explicit in every 
case of the actual use of the term: in a number of 
instances the term may express no more than high 
respect and a general recognition of authority, and in 
several instances it is represented in parallel passages in 
the other evangelists by one or another of its lower 
synonyms.^^ But its tendency is distinctly upwards; 
and no reader can fail to catch a very high note in its 
repeated use, or can feel surprise when it is observed 
to be connected usually with at least Messianic impli- 
'cations (15^^ ^21, 21^ jg found occasionally 

to be suggestive of something even higher 
Nor will he be surprised to perceive that in its highest 
connotation it appears characteristically upon the lips 
of our Lord Himself, who represents men as seeking 
to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by crying to Him 
‘Lord, Lord’ (7"^), and as addressing Him on the 
Day of Judgment as He sits King on the throne of 
His glory by the appropriate title of ‘ Lord ’ (25^^’^^). 
In the latter case, of course, nothing is lacking of rec- 
' ognition of divine majesty itself : this ‘ Lord ’ is not 
only “ the Son of Man ” come in His glory with all 
Xthe angels with Llim (verse 31), ‘the King’ (verses 
34, 40) seated on the throne of His majesty (verse 
31), but ‘the Judge of all the earth,’ distributing to 
each man his eternal destiny, according to the relation 
in which each stands to His own person. 

It is clear enough from passages like these that 


Mk 9^ (17^) ; pal^iSo'^t Mk ; 3 idd(Txa?<e Lk 

488 (g 25 )^ Mk 9^^ Lk 938 (1715); Iruavara Lk 8^4 ( 825 ) (174). 


72 The Designations of Our Lord 

our Lord is represented by Matthew as conceiving 
His relation to His followers as very 
an Appellat^n properly expressed by the term ‘ Lord.’ 
But the appellative use of the term of 
Jesus is nevertheless not common In Matthew. No 
;\^more in Matthew than In Mark Is Jesus spoken of by the 
evangelist himself or represented as freely spoken of by 
others as ‘ the Lord.’ Even In the words of the angel 
at the tomb, “ Come, see the place where the Lord 
lay” (28®), the words “the Lord” are probably 
not genuine. Nevertheless, on the Ups of our Lord 
Himself the appellative use of the term does occur, 
and that In no low significance. He declares Himself 
as ‘ the Son of Man ’ to be ‘ Lord of the Sabbath ’ 
(12®). He Instructs His disciples In requisitioning 
the ass and her colt for His formal entry Into Jeru- 
salem to reply to all challengers with the simple words, 
“The Lord has need of them” (21^), — and the nar- 
rator connects this Instruction with the fulfillment of 
the prophecy that the King of Zion shall enter It “ rid- 
ing upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass ” 
(verse 5). He warns His followers that as they know 
not on what day ‘their Lord’ cometh (24^“), — that 
Lord who Is the Son of Man, who Is to come In glory 
for the judgment of the world (verse 44), — they are 
to preserve a constant attitude of watchfulness. And 
in accordance with these declarations He explains that 
though David’s son. He, the Christ, Is much more than 
David’s son, — as David himself In the Spirit recog- 
nized, — even David’s ‘Lord’ (22^^’^®), and that, a 
Lord who sits on the right hand of the Lord who Is 
Jehovah. It Is In full harmony with these definitions 
of His Lordship cited from the Lord’s own lips that 


The Designations in Matthew 


73 


the evangelist himself (3^) applies to Him the term 
‘ Lord ’ in that prophecy of Isaiah, in which there is 
promised “ a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 
Make ye ready the way of the Lord,” Jehovah; thus 
identifying His coming with the promised advent of 
Jehovah and His person with Jehovah who was to 
come. However little therefore the mere form of 
f address ‘ Lord ’ as applied to Christ may necessarily 
imply in Him a superhuman dignity, it is clear that 
the actual Lordship accredited to Him by Matthew, 
and by Himself as reported by Matthew, stretches 
above all human claims. 

We cannot fail to have observed, as we have con- 
templated these honorific addresses and titles accorded 
to our Lord, that it is His Messianic 
dignity which proximately underlies 
them all. And we shall be prepared by 
this observation to note that with Matthew as with 
Mark, the presentation of Him as the promised Mes- 
siah belongs among the primary ends of the evan- 
gelist, and that in the process of this presentation a 
considerable number of Messianic titles are ascribed 
to Him. Matthew bears witness, like Mark, to be 
( sure, that the people recognized in Him a prophet 
(21^6 16^^) and that Jesus Himself was far from 

repelling this attribution (13^^); but little stress is 
laid upon this and it may be easily understood that 
prophetic powers were conceived by Matthew, as by 
Mark, to be included in His Messianic endowment. We 
have seen that he himself calls Jesus in the formal 
opening of his Gospel (i^), at the beginning of the 
narrative proper and at the new beginning 

marked by His open proclamation of His dignity 


74 


The Designations of Our Lord 

(i6^^), by the solemn compound name of ‘Jesus 
Christ,’ thus carefully announcing His Messianic 
claims as governing the very frame-work of his Gos- 
pel. And we have seen him following up this cere- 
monious use of the full name ‘ Jesus Christ ’ in the 
opening of the Gospel, by explaining the term ‘ Christ,’ 
which forms a part of it, as a surname of Jesus due to 
the recognition of Him as the Messiah on which 

account He forms the natural termination of the gen- 
ealogy begun in Abraham and by implying 

that His works marked Him out as the Messiah ( 1 1^) , 
so that the imprisoned John, hearing of them, was 
impelled to inquire into their meaning. How wide- 
spread the knowledge of His Messianic claims was is 
witnessed by the adjuration of the high priest at His 
trial, “ I adjure thee by the living God, that thou 
tell us whether thou be the Christ” (26®^), and the 
bitter sport His judges made of Him (26®®) as they 
smote Him and demanded, “ Tell us, Christ, who 
smote thee.” 

Evidently our Lord’s claim to the Messianic dig- 
nity is intended to be represented as having been 

Our Lord’s clear, constant and emphatic: so a part 
Own Messianic of Himself in the popular understand- 
Claims heathen judge already con- 

ceived the title ‘ Christ’ as only His surname (27^'^’“^ 
cf. ii^). And indeed Matthew’s narrative leaves us 
in no uncertainty that Jesus had claimed this title for 
Himself from His earliest ministry. When the Bap- 
tist, having heard of the works He did, sent from his 
prison to ask Him whether He was ‘ the Coming One ’ 
(ii^). He replied with no doubtful indication that Lie 
was indeed ‘the Christ’ When Peter (16^®) in his 


The Designations in Matthew 75 

great confession declared Him ‘‘ the Christ, the Son 
of the living God,” Jesus pronounced the declaration 
a revelation from heaven (16^’^), and only charged 
His disciples not as yet to reveal the fact that He was 
“the Christ” (i6“^). It was evidently to elevate the 
conception current as to the Christ whom He repre- 
sented Himself as being that He put to His opponents 
the searching question, how could the Christ be merely 
'David’s son, when David himself, in the Spirit, spoke 
of Him as his Lord — a Lord seated on the right hand 
of God (22^^'^®). Because He was, as ‘the Christ,’ 
the sole ‘ Guide ’ to His followers. He would not have 
them be called guides, even as they should put no 
earthly person in the place of their one Father in 
heaven (23^®). The name ‘the Christ,’ He explained 
1(24^), was exclusively His own, and it would be a 
usurpation, therefore, which could only lead astray, if 
others should come “ in the strength of His name, say- 
ing ” — therefore falsely, — “ I am the Christ.” When 
the high priest adjured Him to tell whether He were 
the Christ, the Son of God” (26^^) He, accordingly, 
^ solemnly accepted the title and explained that in ac- 
cepting it He took it in its highest connotation (26®^) 

< — in so high a connotation indeed that His judges 
promptly pronounced what He had spoken blasphemy. 
It is, therefore, only in imitation of Jesus Himself that 
Matthew treats the designation of ‘ the Christ ’ as 
Jesus’ peculiar property and — though of course with- 
out emptying it of its lofty connotation — deals with it as 
His proper name by which He might be currently des- 
ignated. 

The ascription of the title ‘ Christ’ to Jesus carries 
with it naturally certain other Messianic titles which 


76 The Designations of Our Lord 

are involved in it. The simplest of these is ‘ the 
The Simple Coming One,’ based apparently on 
Messianic Mai 3^ or Ps 40^ or 1 1 8^®, and itself the 
Designations b^sis of a customary method of pregnant 
speech of the Messiah as “ coming.’”^*^ This designa- 
tion is applied to Jesus in the question of the Baptist — 
“ Art thou the Coming One, or do we look for an- 
other? ” ( 1 1^) , which Matthew records as having been 
called out by the report brought the Baptist of the 
“ works of Christ ” — using the name of ‘ Christ ’ here 
instead of ‘ Jesus,’ contrary to his custom, apparently 
under the influence of this train of thought. And the 
evangelist records in accordance with this designation 
a series of sayings of our Lord in which He speaks 
pregnantly of having “come” (5^^ 9^^ 10^^ 20^®, cf. 

22 See the passages carefully enumerated in Thayer-Grimm, sub voc. 
epyoixai^ I. i a. /?. (pp. 250-1 near top). Dr. Edersheim, Life, etc., i. 
668, says: “The designation, ‘the Coming One’ {habba), though a 
most truthful expression of Jewish expectations, was not one ordinarily 
used of the Messiah. But it was invariably used with reference to 
the Messianic age . . .” Dr. Edersheim Is speaking, of course, of 

what Is to be garnered from extant Jewish writings. The employment 
of the phrase in Mt ii^ and Lk Is sufficient proof that It bore 
among the Jews of the day “ a technical sense ” as a title of the Mes- 
siah (cf. Westcott on Jno i^^). With reference to the appearance of 
this designation precisely here, Zahn {in loc.) remarks: “While Mat- 
thew expresses the dignity, as the possessor of which Jesus has mani- 
fested Himself by means of His works heretofore described, by the 
long established title of 6 Xpi<TTd<; (cf. esp. 2^), he makes the Baptist 
(who also in his public preaching seems to have avoided this title) 
give expression to the same conception, consonantly with the manner in 
which he had spoken of the future founder and King of the Kingdom 
of Heaven (3I1, Mk i'^, Lk 3I®, Jno j 27 ) by the term o kpy 6 pevo<;^ 
the Coming One, the Great Expected. No doubt other expected per- 
sonalities might be similarly spoken of (Mt 11^^ 17^® Jno 6^^), but 
in the mouth of the Baptist the expression was without ambiguity: for 
he had spoken of One only who was already on the way, which John 
was to prepare for Him.” 


The Designaiiotis in Matthew 77 

10“*®), as well as certain popular ascriptions to the same 
effect (21® 23^^).^^ 

Even more directly connected with the title, ‘ Christ,’ 
however. Is that of ‘ King ’ : and we find Matthew 
accordingly recording the ascription of that title to 
Him in the heathen form of ‘ the King of the Jews,’ 
alike by the wise men of the east who came to 
worship Him in His cradle (2^) and by the Roman 
governor at His trial (27^^ cf. 27^'^) and the mocking 
soldiery (27^®). Jesus accepts it at Pilate’s hands, 
despite the heathen form which he gives it, and which 
the priests (27^“) correct to the more acceptable ‘ King 
of Israel.’ Of more significance is Matthew’s appli- 
cation to Him, when He entered Jerusalem in triumph, 
of the prophecy of Zecharlah, “ Behold thy King com- 
eth unto thee,” etc. (21^). But, of course, the deepest 
significance of all attaches to our Lord’s own use of 
the title ‘ King ’ with reference to Himself in the great 
judgment scene of Mt 25^^ (verses 34 and 40). 
Here, calling Himself the ‘ Son of Man,’ He ascends 
the throne of His glory, and as King, not of Israel, but 
of all flesh, dispenses their final awards tO' all, accord- 
ing to their several rations to Himself. Such a King 
certainly was something more than a ‘ Son of David ’ 
(2 2^^®eq.)^ But that designation also belongs to Him 
as the ‘ Christ,’ God’s Anointed, who was to occupy 
the Davidic throne, and accordingly it is represented 
that the sight of His Messianic works led Him to be 
recognized no more as ‘the Coming One ’ (ii^) than 

23 Cf. W. C. Allen on Mt ii^^. Commenting on the aorist, Ttapedod-q^ 
he remarks: “The idea involved is of a pre-temporal act, and carries 
with it the conception of the preexistence of the Messiah. The same 
thought probably underlies ^Xdov of 5^"^ and the dnoffre lavra 

of io40.” 


78 The Designations of Our Lord 

as ‘the Son of David’ (i2“^ 9-’^ 15^^ cf. 

1^) — and that He by no means refused the ascription 
(esp. 21^’^^). 

Obviously, however, no lower title would suit the 
state of this Messianic King than that highest con- 
Meaning ceivable one, ‘ the Son of God.’ It is 
of the likely that there were supernatural im- 
‘Son of God* plications in the mind of the evangelist 
even when he applied to the persecuted infant Jesus 
the prophetic summary of Israelitish history, “ Out 
of Egypt did I call my Son” (2^^), although at first 
sight we might seem to be moving here in the atmos- 
phere of a merely official sonship.^^ In every other 
instance of the adduction of this designation in Mat- 
thew^ these supernatural implications are thrust promi- 
nently forward. The very point of Satan’s temptation 
of our Lord was that He should exercise the super- 
natural powers which necessarily belonged to Him — 
if He were indeed really ‘a Son of God’ (4^’^ cf. 
829). 25 Sicnilarly the confession wrung from the dis- 

2^ Cf. Zahn in loc.: “ According to the connection of the narrative 
up to this point, Jesus can be called the Son of God for no other reason 
than that He was born of the Virgin apart from any aid of man (cf. 
Lk 1^5). The divine sonship of Israel, which was grounded in God’s 
calling this people into being for a particular purpose, and, as it were, 
begetting it (Deut 32I®) — an idea which was so vividly conceived 
that God’s fatherhood is set excludingly over against that of Abraham 
and Jacob (Is 63^®) — appears as a type of the divine Sonship of Jesus, 
which actually excludes the bodily fatherhood of the son of David.” 

25 Cf. Zahn, in loc. (p. 152); “He is by a word of power to create 
for Himself the food for which He hungers. This is an echo out of 
^ the abyss corresponding to the voice from heaven (3^^). What God 
declares of Jesus, the devil brings into question (Gen 3^, Job jSseq.)^ 
demanding from Jesus that He should offer him proof of it. We must 
not overlook, however, that he does not say, as might have been ex- 
pected from the undeniable connection with 3^’^, e: 6 ulo^ but el o!o^ 


The Designations in Matthew 79 

ciples by the spectacle of His control of the forces of 
nature, emphasizes as strongly as possible the super- 
naturalness of the Being who is capable of such works 
(14^3) .26 In Peter’s great confession (16^®)^’^ the jid- 
junction of ‘ the Son of the Living God ’ to the simple 
‘ Christ ’ is no more without its high significance than 
the similar adjunction in the high priest’s adjuration 
(2663)28 q£ t God’ to the simple ‘ Christ.’ 

ej TOO 6 eoo» He is to prove not that He is the unique Son of 
God whom God just on that account has chosen as the Messiah, but 
that He is a being more closely related than other men to God (cf. Mt 
1^33 27'^®). If it cannot be unknown to the evil spirit, who is ac- 
quainted with the voice from heaven, that Jesus has been chosen to be 
the Messiah, nevertheless what he demands of Him has nothing di- 
rectly to do with this vocation. It is, however, surely to be expected 
of One who as a Son of God must have power over nature, that He 
should rescue Himself from the unsuitable condition of a hungry man 
by the use of His power.” 

26 Cf. Zahn, in loc. (p. 513): “Neither the absence of the article 

from the predicate (cf. on the other hand, 31'^ i6^6 even nor the 

position of Oeou before olog Is to be overlooked. Even if divine 
Sonship and Messianic dignity were s)monyms (see to the contrary 
p. 145 seg.), and what had cast the disciples into adoring wonder had 
had anything to do with the office of the Messiah, the absence of the 
article nevertheless would forbid us to think of that here (cf. on the 
contrary, i2~^ 16^6 21^ 2663). What is said and what there was occa- 
sion to say Is not who but what kind of a man Jesus was. The ques- 
tion elicited by a similar occasion, 7 ioran 6 <^ kariv ourof (S^t) is here 
answered; though, naturally, not after the fashion of a scholastic 
dictum, but in the direct expression of an overwhelming experience. 
Not a son of man, but a Son of God He is, who exhibits such super- 
natural power over the elements, and shows Himself so exalted over 
the hesitancies between the power of faith and the feebleness of the 
flesh which accompany human weakness even when the spirit is willing, 
— as was to be seen in Peter.” 

27 Cf. Zahn in loc. pp. 534-5: goes above 14^2 In confessing Jesus as 
the Son of God, and of the living God; that is, Jesus had manifested 
the works of the Son of a God who exists and acts, etc. 

28 Cf. Zahn in loc., pp. 694-5. 


8o 


The Designations of Oiir Lord 

In both instances the Intention Is to go beyond the 
mere designation of our Lord as the Messiah, and to 
bring into relief the supernaturalness of His person. 
Even when the Jews railed at Him as He hung on the 
cross that He had proclaimed Himself ‘ the Son of 
God’ (27^^’^^), the point of their scoff was that He 
had laid claim to a supernatural relationship which 
implied supernatural powers. Nevertheless, the deepest 
connotations of the Sonship to God come out most 
plainly in connection with the less technical forms of 
this designation. At the apex of these stands, of course, 
the double attestation which, it Is recorded, was given 
to Jesus from heaven Itself as God’s ‘ Son,’ w^ho be- 
cause His ‘ Son ’ was also His ‘ Beloved,’ His chosen, 
in whom He was well pleased (3^'^ 17^).^® But quite 
worthy of a place by the side of these supreme attesta- 
tions Is the allusion which our Lord makes to Himself 
in one or two of His parables, as the ‘ Son,’ in dif- 
ferentiation from all “servants” of God whatsoever; 
as God’s Son and unique Heir, who, despite what those 
to whom He was sent should do unto Him, shall be 
constituted by God’s marvelous working the stone 

29 Cf. Zahn in loc., pp. 145 seq., where the question is fully discussed 
and solidly argued: “As at 2^^ so here the divine Sonship is to be 
explained from 1I8-25. it expresses not an official, but a personal rela- 
tion; it is not identical with the Messianic office, but its presupposi- 
tion.” One of the arguments on which Zahn lays stress, however, 
scarcely serves : “ The idea that God, out of the many sons which He 
has, has chosen one and that for the Messiahship, is excluded by the 
attribute for in this connection dya7T7]T6<^ bears the es- 

tablished sense of only son=^iovo^ev>;9*” It appears to be probable, 
on the contrary, that, as W. C. Allen, in loc., puts it “ 6 dyanTjTo? 
is not an attribute of d oloq [loo, but an independent title — ‘the 
Beloved ’ — the Messiah.” The matter is discussed by Dr. J. Armitage 
Robinson in Hastings’ Diet. Bib. II. 501, and in his commentary on 
Ephesians, pp. 229!!. 


The Designations in Matthew 8 i 

which Is the head of the corner (21^’^'^®) and as the 
King’s Son, all those unworthy of a place at whose 
marriage feast should have their part In the outer dark- 
ness where Is the weeping and the gnashing of teeth 
(22^). This ‘Son’ obviously Is no less In origin and 
nature divine than In His working In the earth the Lord 
of the destinies of men. 

But perhaps the most Illuminating passages In this 
reference remain yet to be adduced. These are those 
. three remarkable utterances of our Lord 
which are recorded at 24^% 11^^ and 
2 818 - 20 ^ The first of these we have al- 
ready met with In Mark. It Is that difficult saying 
In which our Lord declares that “ concerning the day 
and hour ” of His coming “ no one knows, not even 
the angels of heaven, nor yet the Son, but the Father 
only ” — which differs from the parallel In Mark sig- 
nificantly only In the added emphasis placed on the 
exclusion of all others whatsoever from this knowledge 
by the adjunction to the exception of the Father of 
the emphatic word “ only.” The elevation of the Son 
here to superangellc dignity, as the climax of the 
enumeration of those excluded from the knowledge 
In question Is reached In His name — no one at all, not 
even the angels of heaven, nor yet even the Son — Is 
what It particularly concerns us to note. Implying as 
It does the exaltation of the Son above the highest of 
creatures, “ the angels of heaven.”^^ The second of 

so Cf. Zahn, in loc., pp. 620, 621. 

SI The words “ nor yet the Son ” are, to be sure, lacking in a few 
somewhat unimportant witnesses to the text, but can scarcely be ad- 
judged of doubtful genuineness. W. C. Allen rejects them In sequence 
to a theory of his own of the relation of Matthew to Mark, and Mat- 
thew’s habit of dealing with Mark’s christological statements. Zahn 


82 The Designations of Oiir Lord 

the utterances in question is in some respects 

the most remarkable in the whole compass of the four 
Gospels. { Even the Gospel of John contains nothing 
which penetrates more deeply into the essential rela- 
tion of the Son to the Father. Indeed, as Dr. Sanday 
suggests, “ we might describe the teaching of the 
Fourth Gospel ” as only “ a series of variations upon 
the one theme, which has its classical expression in ” 
this “verse of the Synoptics ” “All things were de- 
livered unto me by my Father; and no one knoweth 
the Son save the Father; neither doth any know the 
Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
willeth to reveal Him.” The point of the utterance, 
it will be seen, is that in it our Lord asserts for Himself 
a relation of practical equality with the Father, here 
described in most elevated terms as the “ Lord of 
heaven and earth” (v. 25).®® As the Father only can 
know the Son, so the Son only can know the Father: 
and others may know the Father only as He is revealed 
by the Son. That is, not merely is the Son the ex- 
clusive revealer of God, but the mutual knowledge of 
Father and Son is put on what seems very much a par. 
The Son can be known only by the Father in all that 
He is, as if His being were infinite and as such in- 

more wisely retains them, as do all the editors. “The documentary 
evidence in their favor,” says Hort justly, “ is overwhelming.” 

32 Criticism of the Ne^w Testament , — by a company of scholars, — 
p. 17. 

33 Cf. Zahn on Mt ii 25-30 440): “As Jesus here names Him 

whom He has just called ‘ His Father,’ in the second and third clauses 
simply ‘the Father ’ — which is not to be paralleled with the address of 
vv. 25, 26 — so He names Himself three times simply ‘ the Son,’ in 
order to designate Himself as the only one who stood to God in the 
full sense of that name in the relation of a Son to a Father.” 


The Designations in Matthew 83 


scrutable to the finite intelligence; and His knowledge 
alone — again as if He were infinite in His attributes — 
is competent to compass the depths of the Father’s 
infinite being. He who holds this relation to the 
Father cannot conceivably be a creature, and we ought 
not to be surprised, therefore, to find in the third of 
these great utterances (28^®'^^) the Son made openly a 
sharer with the Father (and with the Holy Spirit) in 
the single Name of God: “All authority was given 
me^^ in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and 
make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into 
the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, 
even unto the end of the world.” Having in the 
former passage declared His intercommunion 

with the Father, who is the Lord of heaven and earth, 
Jesus here asserts that all authority in heaven and 
earth has been given Him, and asserts a place for Him- 
self in the pj;ecincts of the ineffable Name. Here is 
a claim not merely to a deity in some sense equivalent 
to and as it were alongside of the deity of the Father, 
but to a deity in some high sense one with the deity 
of the Father. 

Alongside of these more usual Messianic titles, there 
are found in Matthew, as in Mark, traces of the use 


Less Common of Others of our Lord, apparently less 
Messianic current among the people. In Mat- 
thewy too, for example, we find Jesus 
represented as designated from heaven ‘ the Be- 
loved,’ who has been chosen out by God as His rep- 


Note the aorist, which as in ii27 (cf. W. C. Allen, in loc.) appears 
to refer to a pre-temporal act. 


84 The Designations of Our Lord 

resentative (3^^ and as identifying Himself 

with the mysterious Shepherd of Zechariah who is 
Jehovah’s fellow (26^^). And we find Him here also 
not only designating Himself the ‘ Bridegroom ’ 
(9^^), but elucidating the designation in a couple' of 
striking parables (the parable of the Ten Virgins, 
2 .1 seq.,5,6,10. parable of the Marriage of the 

King’s Son, 22^®®^^-), the suggestion of which is that 
the fate of men hangs on their relation to Him; that 
men all live with reference to Him; and it is He that 
opens and shuts the door of life for them. The high 
significance of these designations as applied to Jesus 
has already been pointed out when we met with them 
in Mark. It is more important, therefore, to observe 
here that the irnplicit reference in Mar k to the ‘ Serv- 
ant of Jehovah ’ as a designation of Jesus is made 
explicit in Matthew by the formal application to Him 
of the prophecy in Isaiah 40^ (12^®®®*^-) as a divine 

prediction of the unostentatiousness of His ministry, 
in its striking contrast with the expectations which had 
been formed of the Messiah’s work on the basis of the 
predictions centering around the Anointed King, the 
Son of David. 

This unostentatiousness entered also into the concep- 
tion of the Messiah expressed in our Lord’s favorite 
self-designation of ‘ Son of Man,’ — 
‘Son of Man’ which in Matthew’s representation, too, 
appears as the standing Messianic des- 
ignation which our Lord employs of Himself, occur- 
ring as such about thirty times. The Messianic 
character of this designation is placed beyond all doubt 

Cf. W. C. Allen on 3!^^ and J. A. Robinson, Ephesians 229 seq. and 
Hastings’ Diet, of the Bible, ii., p. 501; also Charles, Ascension of 
Isaiah, p. 3 et passim, and E. Daplyn sub voc. Hastings’ D, C. G, 


The Designations in Matthew 85 

by its interchange with other Messianic titles (I6^^ 
cf. verses 16, 20; 17^ cf. verse 10 [the forerunner of 
Messiah]; 24^^ cf. verse 23; 26®"^, cf. verse 63) : and 
the conception suggested by it of the Messiah, as 
judged by the substance of the passages in which it 
occurs, differs in nothing from that derived from the 
passages in Mark except that it is illuminated by more 
details. Here, too, we learn that the ‘ Son of Man ’ 
came to minister, — or more specifically for the pur- 
pose of redemption : “ the Son of Man came not to 
be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His 
life a ransom for many” (20^®). Suffering and death 
were, therefore. His appointed portion (17^^ 17^^ 20^^ 
252,24,45^^ as indeed Scripture had foretold (12^*^). But 
after death is the resurrection (17^’““ 20^® 12^®), and 
after the resurrection the “ coming ” in great glory to 
judge the world (10^^ 26®^). There is noth- 

ing here which we had not already in Mark, but every- 
where details are filled in. The fortunes of the earthly 
life of the ‘ Son of Man ’ are traced. We learn that 
He lived like other men, without asceticism, — “ eating 
and drinking” (ii^^) ; but lived a hard and suffering 
life, — He had not where to lay His head (8“^). His 
task was to sow the good seed of the word (13^^). 
As part of His lowliness, it emerges that blasphemy 
against Him is forgivable, as it is not against the Holy 
Ghost (12^^). And the suffering He is called on to 
endure runs out into death (17^^’^“). It would not 
be easy to give a more itemized account of the suffer- 
ings He endured at the end than Mark gives, but 
they are all set down here, too (20^®), as also is the 
promise of the resurrection (12^^ 1^9.23 20^®) . When He 
shall come again is left here, too, in the indefinite future 


86 


The Designations of Our Lord 

(24"^, cf. iO“"), but the suddenness of its eventuation 
is emphasized 

The details become notably numerous again, how- 
ever, when the purpose and accompaniment of this 
coming are adverted to (13^^ 16“^ 19^^ 24^^ 25^^ 26®^). 
The ‘ Son of Man ’ is “ henceforth to be seen sitting 
at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds 
of heaven” (26^^ 24^^). He is to come in the glory 
of His Father with His angels (i6“^), for all the 
angels are to be with Him (25^^). The end of His 
coming is to pass judgment on men and to consummate 
the Kingdom. “ For the Son of Man shall come in 
the glory of His Father with His angels, and then 
shall He render unto every man according to his deeds ” 
(i6“^) — and this is “to come in His kingdom” 
(i6“®). There is naturally a punitive side to this 
judgment and a side of rev/ard. Of the punitive side 
we are told that “ when the sign of the Son of Man 
coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great 
glory shall appear,” “ all the tribes of the earth shall 
mourn” (24''^^^); and that He “shall send forth His 
angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all 
things that cause stumbling and them that do iniquity, 
and shall cast them into the furnace of fire : there shall 
be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth” (13^^). 
On the side of reward we are told that “ those who 
have followed Him, in the regeneration when the ‘ Son 
of Man ’ shall sit on the throne of His glory ” “ also 
shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelv^tribes 
of Israel” (19"®). For “He shall send forth His 
angels with a great sound of trumpets, and they shall 
gather together His elect from the four winds; from 
one end of heaven to the other” (24^^), and “then 


The Designations in Matthew 87 

dom of their Father ” (13^^). It is obviously the 
universal judgment that is here brought before us; 
and the consummation of the Kingdom, when by this 
judgment all that is impure js drafted out of it and the 
chosen are made sharers in the universal regeneration. 
The whole scene of the judgment is pictured for us 
with great vividness in the remarkable passage, 
where all the nations are depicted as summoned before 
the throne of the ‘ Son of Man’s ’ glory and separated 
according to their deeds done in the body — interpreted 
as relating to Him — to the eternal inheritance of the 
kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of 
the world or to the eternal fire prepared for the devil 
and his angels. The ‘ Son of Man ’ appears here ac- 
cordingly as the King on His throne apportioning to 
men their eternal destinies. 

Clearly, according to Matthew’s account of our 
Lord’s declarations, the ‘ Son of Man ’ has His period 
The High ®f humiliation on earth, living as other 
Meaning of men sowing the seed (13^^), 

* Son of Man’ having not where to lay His head (8^^) 
as He ministers to men (20^®), forgiving even blas- 
phemy against Himself (12^^) and all indignities 
(i7i2’22), down to death itself (17^^ 20^®) — and yet 
even while on earth having authority to forgive sins 
(9®) and to regulate religious ordinances (12®), and 
dying only that He may ransom others (202^). And 
He has also His period of exaltation, when having 
risen from the dead (12^® 1^9,23 He in due time 

comes in His glory, surrounded by His servants the 
angels (162^ 25^^ 24^^), and gathers to Himself His 
chosen ones whom He has ransomed by His death 
(24^^ 13^^) ^nd, cleansing His Kingdom of all that 
is iinrlean. RPts If- nn in Ifs dpstlned nerfectlon ( 16 ^^). 


88 The Designations of Our Lord 

The picture that is drawn is clearly, then, a picture of 
voluntary humiliation for a high end, with the ac- 
complishment of the end and return to the original 
glory. In order to bring all its implications out in 
their completeness we have only to recall what Mat- 
thew tells us, on the one hand, of the ‘ Son ’ who is 
superior to angels (24^®), who is God’s adequate and 
exclusive Revelation, knowing Him even as He is 
known (ii^^), who is sharer with the Father in the 
one ineffable Name (28^^'^^) ; and, on the other, in 
the opening chapter of his Gospel, of the supernatural 
birth of this heavenly Being, breaking His way to earth 
through a virgin’s womb in fulfillment of the prophecy 
that He should be called “ Immanuel,” “ God with 
us,” For it can scarcely be doubted that Matthew 
means this name ‘Immanuel’ (i‘^) to be interpreted 
metaphysically of Jesus, and therefore adduces the 
prophecy as a testimony to the essential deity of the 
virgin-born child, — and indeed the angel messenger 
himself is recorded as not obscurely indicating this 
when he explains that the child whose birth he an- 
nounces shall be called Jesus “ because it is He that 
shall save His people from their sins ” — thus applying 
to the promised infant the words spoken in Ps 130^ 
of Jehovah Himself: “And He shall redeem Israel 
from all his iniquities.”®® The very name ‘ Jesus ’ 
for Matthew, as truly as that of ‘ Immanuel ’ itself, is 
thus freighted with an implication of the deity of its 
bearer: and this is only a symbol of the saturation of 
his Gospel with the sense of the supreme majesty of the 
great personality whose life-history as the promised 
Messiah he has undertaken to portray. 

3® So Dalman, strikingly, Words, 297. 


MATTHEW’S CONCEPTION OF OUR LORD 


In seeking to form an estimate of the significance 
of this list of designations ascribed to Jesus in Mat- 
Profundity of thew, it does not seem necessary to 
Matthew’s attempt to draw out separately, as we 
Suggestiveness attempted to do in the case of Mark, 
the evidence they supply to the primary emphasis 
laid in Matthew upon the Messianic dignity of Jesus 
and that they supply to the recognition of the divine 
majesty of His person. It lies on the very face of 
these designations that by Matthew, as truly as by 
Mark, Jesus js conceived in the first instance as the 
promised Messiah, and His career and work as funda- 
mentally the career and work of the Messiah, at last 
come to introduce the promised Kingdom. And it lies 
equally on their very face that this Messiah whom 
Jesus is represented as being is conceived by Mat- 
thew, and is represented by Matthew as having been 
conceived by Jesus Himself, as a “ transcendent ” 
figure, as the current mode of speech puts it, i. e., as 
far transcending in His nature and dignity human 
conditions. 

So clear is this in fact that our Interest as we read 
instinctively takes hold in Matthew of matters quite 
other than those which naturally occupy it in Mark. 
In Mark the attention of the reader is attracted par- 
ticularly to the implications of the superangelic dignity 
ascribed to the Messiah; and he finds himself unpre- 

89 


90 The Designations of Our Lord 

meditatingly noting the evidence of the presupposition 
of His heavenly origin and relations, of His pre- 
existence, of His more than human majesty, of His 
divine powers and functions. These things are so 
much a matter of course with Matthew that the at- 
tention of the reader is drawn insensibly off from them 
to profounder problems. This Gospel opens with an 
account of the supernatural bir^h of Jesus, which is 
so told as to imply that the birth is supernatural only 
because the person so born is not of this world, but 
in descending to it fulfills the prophecies that Jehovah 
shall come to His people to dwell among them and to 
save them from their sins. From the very outset, 
therefore, there can be no question in the mind of the 
reader that he has to deal no-t merely with a super- 
natural life but with a supernatural person, all whose 
life on earth is a concession to a necessity arising solely 
from His purpose to save.^ No wonder rises in him, 
therefore, when he reads of the supramundai^ powers 
of this person, of His superhuman insight, of His 
supernatural deeds. That He is superior to the angels, 
who appear constantly as His servants, and is in some 
profound sense divine, clothed with all divine qualities, 
strikes him as in no sense strange. The matters on 
which he finds his mind keenly alert rise above these 

^Cf. W. C. Allen, Hastings’ D. C. G., I., 308 : “ In the thought of 
the evangelist, Jesus, born of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, was the 
preexistent Messiah (= the Beloved) or Son who had been 

forechosen by God (3^'^ 17®) > and who, when born Into the world as 
Jesus, was ‘ God-with-us ’ (i^^). In this respect the writer of the 
First Gospel shows himself to be under the influence of the same con- 
ception of the Person of Christ that dominates the Johannine theology, 
though this conception under the categories of the Logos and the Divine 
Son is worked out much more fully in the Fourth than in the First 
Gospel.” 


Matthezv^s Conception of Our Lord 9 1 

things, and concern the precise relations in which this 
superangelic, and therefore uncreated, Being is con- 
ceived to stand to the Deity Himself. 

It is not possible to avoid noting that all the desig- 
nations applied to Jesus in this narrative tend to run 
Richness up at once on being applied to Him 
of His into their highest implications. Even 
Implications simple name ‘ Jesus ’ is no exception 

to this. For here it is represented as itself a gift from 
heaven, designed to indicate that in this person is ful- 
filled the promise that Jehovah shall visit His people, 
— for it is He who, in accordance with the prediction 
of the Psalmist (130^), shall save His people — His 
people, although, in accordance with that prediction, 
they are Jehovah’s people — from their sins 
Similarly the simple honorifics ‘ Master ’ and ‘ Lord ’ 
rise in Matthew’s hands to their highest value; ‘ Mas- 
ter ’ becomes transformed into the more absolute 
Master of the House ” with His despotic power, 
governing all things in accordance with His will (20^^) 
and disposing of the destinies of men in supreme sov- 
ereignty (iO“^ J^24seq.,36seq.^ . ‘ Lord ’ becomes the 

proper designation of the universal King and Judge 
(2^37,44) ^hose coming is the coming of Jehovah (3^). 

X^As the ‘ Christ ’ He is pictured as sitting less on David’s 
throne than on God’s (22^^’'^^) ; as ‘ King,’ less as the 
ruler of the nation for Israel than as Judge of all 
the world for God (25^^®®"^); as ‘Bridegroom’ as 
holding in His own hands the issues of life (22^ 25^) ; 
as ‘ the Son of Man ’ as passing through humiliation 
only to His own proper glory (i6“^ 24^® 26^); as 
‘ the Son of God ’ less as God’s representative and the 
vehicle of His grace than as God’s fellow and 


92 The Designations of Our Lord 

the sharer with the Father in the one Ineffable Name 
(2 818-20)^ Thus the reader Is brought steadily upwards 
to the great passages In which Matthew records Jesus’ 
supreme self-testimony to His essential relations with 
His Father, and his attention Is quite Insistently focused 
upon them. 

“ All things were delivered unto me of my Father,” 
says Jesus, as reported In one of them (ii^^) : “and 
^ ■ Assimilation ^o One knoweth the Son save the 
of Jesus Father; neither doth any know the 

With God Father save the Son, and he to whom- 
soever the Son wllleth to reveal Him. Come unto 
me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will 
give you rest.” Thus our Lord solemnly presents Him- 
self to men as the exclusive source of all knowledge of 
God, and the exclusive channel of divine grace. No 
one can know the Father save through Him, and 
through Him alone can rest be found for weary souls. 
And this His exclusive mediation of saving knowledge 
He makes to rest upon His unique relation to the 
Father, by virtue of which the Father and Son, and 
all that Is In the Father and Son, He mutually open to 
each other’s gaze. Attention has been called to the 
fact, and It Is Important to observe It, that the whole 
passage Is cast In the present tense, and the relation 
announced to exist between the Father and Son is, 
therefore, represented not as a past relation but as a 
continuous and unbroken one. What our Lord asserts 
Is thus not that He once was with the Father and knew 
His mind, and Is therefore fitted to mediate It as His 
representative on earth : It Is that He, though on 
earth, still Is with the Father and knows His mind — 
yea, and will know it unchangeably forever. The rela- 


Matthew^s Conception of Our Lord 93 

tions of time do not enter into the representation. Our 
Lord presents Himself as the sole source of the knowl- 
edge of God and of the divine grace, because this is 
the relation in which He stands essentially to the 
Father, — a relation of complete and perfect intercom- 
munion. The assertion of the reciprocal knowledge 
of the Father and Son, in other words, rises far above 
the merely mediatorial function of the Son, although it 
underlies His mediatorial mission: it carries us back 
into the region of metaphysical relations. The Son 
is a fit and perfect mediator of the divine knowledge 
and grace because the Son and the Father are mutually 
intercommunicative. The depths of the Son’s being, 
we are told, can be fathomed by none but a divine 
knowledge, while the knowledge of the Son compasses 
all that God is; from both points of view, the Son 
appears thus as “ equal with God.” 

But even this is far from the whole story. The 
perfect reciprocal knowledge of each by the other 
Identification which is affirmed goes far towards sug- 
of Jesus gesting that even equality with God 

With God £^pg short of fully expressing the rela- 

tion in which the Son actually stands to the Father. 
Equality is an external relation: here there is indicated 
an internal relation which suggests rather the term 
interpenetration. There is a relation with the Father 
here suggested which transcends all creaturely possi- 
bilities, and in which there is no place even for sub- 
ordination. The man Jesus does indeed represent 
Himself as exercising a mediatorial function; what 
He does is to reveal the Father and to mediate His 
grace; and that because of a delivery over to Him 
by the Father. But this mediatorial function is rooted 


94 


The Designations of Our Lord 

in a metaphysical relation in which is suggested no 
hint of subordination. v^Rather in this region what 
the Father is that the Son seems to be also. There 
is mystery here, no doubt, and nothing is done to re- 
lieve the mystery. All that is done is to enunciate 
in plain words the conception of the relation actually 
existing between the Father and Son which supplies 
their suitable account to all those passages in Matthew 
in which there seems to be suggested a confusion of 
Jesus with God, whether in function or in person. If 
this be the relation of Son and Father — if there is a 
certain mysterious interpenetration to be recognized 
between them — then it is no longer strange that to 
Jesus is attribu^d all the functions of God, including 
the forgiveness of sins and the universal judgment of 
men, nor that in Him is seen the coming of Jehovah 
to save His people, in His presence with men the 
fulfillment of the prophecy of ‘ Immanuel,’ God- 
with-us, in the coming of John the Baptist to prepare 
His way the fulfillment of the prophecy of the mes- 
senger to make the way of Jehovah straight, and the 
like. All things were delivered to Him, in short, be- 
cause He is none else than God on earth. • 

Of quite similar import is the great declaration with 
which the Gospel closes. In this our Lord, announcing 
Participation that all authority was given to Him 
of Jesus in the in heaven and earth — that is, that uni- 
Name versal dominion was committed to Him 
— commands His disciples to advance to the actual con- 
quest of the world, baptizing all the nations into the 
Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Spirit, and promises to be Himself with them unto 
the end of the world (28^^“®). In the absence of the 


'Matthew^ s Conception of Our Lord 95 

former passage, It might conceivably be possible to 
look upon the dominion here claimed and the con- 
junction here asserted of the Son with the Father In the 
future government of the Kingdom as having no root- 
ing In His essential nature but as constituting merely 
a reward consequent upon our Lord’s work. In 
the presence of that passage we cannot void this, how- 
ever, of Its testimony to essential relations. And the 
relation here assigned to the Son with respect to deity 
Is the same as was suggested there. The significant 
point of this passage Is the singular “ Name.” It does 
not read, “ Into the names ” — as of many, but of one, 
— “ Into the Name ” of the Father and of the Son and 
of the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son and the 
Spirit are therefore In some Ineffable sense one, sharers 
In the single Name. Of course It Is what we know as 
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which Is sug- 
gested here, as It was less clearly suggested In the 
former passage,, and as this doctrine Is needed In order 
give consistency and solidity to the pervasive sug- 
gestion of Matthew’s entire narrative that Jesus, whose 
( career he Is recounting. Is In some higher sense than 
mere delegation or representation not merely a super- 
human or superangellc or supercreaturely person, but 
an actually Divine Person, possessed of divine preroga- 
tives, active In divine power, and In multiform ways 
manifesting a divine nature. It were Impossible for 
Matthew to paint Jesus as he has painted Him, and to 
attribute to Him what we have seen him attributing 
to Him, without some such conception as Is enunciated 
In these two great passages In his mind to support, sus- 
tain and give Its justification to his representation. So 
far from these passages offending the reader as they 


g6 The Designations of Our Lord 

stand in Matthew's Gospel, therefore, and raising 
doubts of their genuineness, we should have had to 
postulate something like them for Matthew, had they 
not stood in his Gospel. Matthew's portrait of Jesus 
and the self-witness he quotes from Jesus’ lips to His 
estate and dignit}’, in other words, themselves necessi- 
tate a doctrine of His nature and relations with God 
very much such as is set forth in these passages: and 
we can feel perfectly assured, therefore, that these 
passages represent with great exactness what Matthew 
would tell us of Jesus' deity and what he would report 
as Jesus' own conception of His divine relations. And 
what they tell us — we must not balk at it — is just that 
Jesus is all that God is, and shares in God's nature as 
truly as in God's majesty and power. 


THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN 
LUKE AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS 


We meet very much the same series of designations 
applied to our Lord in Luke as in the other Synoptists. 
But they are applied with some characteristic dif- 
ferences. 

In Luke, too, the ordinal*}^ narrative designation of 
our Lord is the simple ‘ Jesus,’ which occurs about sev- 
enty-seven times. ^ This simplest of all des- 
The Narrative ... i • i i i 

Designations ignations IS not so exclusively employed 

in the narrative of Luke, however, as in 
those of Matthew and Mark. There is an occasional 
variation in Luke to the more descriptive designa- 
tion of ‘the Lord’ jq1,39,41 ^^39 ^^42 j^l5 

18® 19® 2 fourteen times). No other designation 
than these tv*o, however, occurs as a narrative desig- 
nation in Luke, although in three instances Luke makes 
use of another in his narrative. In two of these in- 
stances he is apparently repeating words from the lips 
of others: he tells us that it had been revealed to 
Simeon that he should not die until he had seen ‘ the 
Lord’s Christ’ (2“®) and that Bartimaeus was told 
that ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ was passing (i8^‘). In the 
remaining instance he remarks that the evil spirits 
knew that Jesus was ‘the Christ’ (4'^^); where ‘the 
Christ’ is not strictly a designation of Jesus, but the 

^‘Jesus’ is anarthrous: 321,23 ^s.io g4i ^S 6,50 ig 37,40 

22*8,52 23-® 


97 


98 The Designations of Our Lord 

general term ‘ the Messiah.’ These instances exhibit 
Luke’s willingness to speak of Jesus as the Messiah 
indeed; but are scarcely exceptions to the general fact 
that he himself designates Jesus in the course of his 
narrative only as ‘ Jesus ’ and as ‘ the Lord.’^ As in 
the other Synoptists, the simple ‘ Jesus ’ in Luke is 
also practically reserved for the narrative designation. 
Only in the two instances of the annunciation of His 
name by the angel (T^), which is no exception, and 
in the address to Jesus on the cross by the dying thief 
(2342)3 jg broken. But, as in the other Syn- 

optists, the name ‘ Jesus ’ occurs in compound forms 
of address to Him recorded by the evangelist, — 
‘Jesus, Thou Son of God’ (8-^), ‘Jesus, Thou Son 
of David” (18"^), ‘Jesus, Master’ (17^^); and at 
the hands of the evil spirits (T^), the people (18^^) 
and His disciples (24^^) alike, ‘Jesus the Nazarene ’ 

2 In 242 the general transmission gives “the Lord Jesus”: but this is 

one of the instances in which it is scarcely possible not to follow a 
few “ Western ” witnesses in omitting a very strongly attested reading. 
This combination of designations occurs also in the spurious ending of 
Mark (i 6 i 9 ), but not elsewhere in the Gospels. It becomes, however, 
quite frequent in Acts: 433 759 gi6 „it.20 1526 196,13,17 

2 o 2 i, 24,35 2 i 13 28^!. It might thus have very well been used by Luke 
in his Gospel also. It is common in the Epistles. 

3 The text is not quite certain here, and there are three ways of ren- 
dering it: (i) “And he said to Jesus, Remember me”; (2) “And he 
said, Jesus, remember me”; (3) “And he said. Lord, remember me.” 
The reading ‘Jesus’ seems the preferable one; but it is not altogether 
clear that anarthrous '’I-qnou here may not be the dative after 'iXeyev. 
The uniqueness of the ascription of the simple ‘ Jesus ’ as a form of 
address, to a speaker in the evangelist’s narrative, is, of course, favor- 
able to taking it as a dative. In that case xopie would be an instinc- 
tive correction of "Irjffoo mistaken for a vocative; as in the other case 
it would be an instinctive insertion of a vocative “ because ^Irjffou here 
was mistaken for the dative” (Plummer). 


The Designations in Luke 99 

— whence it emerges that it was by this name that He 
was popularly identified.* 

The ordinary forms of address applied to Jesus in 
Luke are the simple honorifics, ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Master,’ 
Ordinary ‘ Lord,’ employed, however, with a cer- 
Forms of tain discrimination.® The Aramaic 
Address ‘ Rabbi ’ does not occur in Luke 

at all. Its common Greek rendering, ‘ Teacher ’ 
(^dtddaxaXe) ^ seems to be treated as the current non- 
committal honorific, especially appropriate on the lips 
of those who were not, or at least not yet, His dis- 
ciples (7*" II*® 12 ^^ i8*« 19 ^" 8*^ 9^^)- 

The only exception to its employment by this rule is 
supplied by 2 i^ where we are told that certain of 
His disciples “ asked Him saying, ‘ Teacher,’ ” etc. 
That it was not thought inappropriate as a form of ad- 
dress from His disciples to Him is also evinced, how- 
ever, by the report of His own employment of it on 
two occasions. He instructs His followers, in prepar- 
ing the last passover meal for Him, to say to the good- 
man of the house, ‘‘The Teacher saith unto thee, 
where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the pass- 
over with my disciples” ( 22 **); and He tells them, 
broadly indeed, but no doubt with some, though cer- 
tainly remote, reference to Himself and them, that 

^ In 4^^ 24^®, the form is 6 Na^aprjv 6 <$^ as it is in Mark: in 
6 Na^apato?^ as in Mt, Jno and Acts. Cf. Plummer on 4^4. 

5 There is a tendency, of course, to refer to Jesus where He was 
present in fact or thought by the simple demonstrative ouro? 

935 2341 [2q 44 232.4,14,23]^ and this is sometimes contemptuous ([521] 
^39,49 1^2 1914 [2444] 23^4,14,221,25,38 2348). So in the Other evan- 
gelists: Mt 347 g2T 1222 175 2 i 4 o. 4 i,[ 38 ] 2/54^ and contemptuously, 9^ 
1224 [^1254,55,56] 26®4 [27^^] 274^^ Mk 444 g 7 j2^ 1 5^® and Contemptu- 
ously, 2^ [ 62 , 2 , 3 ]. Qn this depreciatory ouro<s see Meyer on 739,49. 


lOO The Designations of Our Lord 

“the disciple is not above his teacher; but every one 
when he is perfected shall be as his teacher ” (6^^) . The 
choice of the term ‘Teacher’ {dtddaxaXoc: ) in these 
two passages appears to be due to the correlative 
“disciples” occurring in each; and it remains true 
that ‘ Teacher ’ ( dtddaxaXe ) as a form of address is 
characteristic in Luke, of non-followers of our Lord.® 
The place of ‘ Teacher ’ on the lips of His followers 
Is partly taken by a new term for ‘^Master,’ peculiar 
to Luke ( iTTtardzrj^ ) which however 

‘Master' occurs only six times (5^ 

17^^), only one of which (17^^) forms 
an exception or quasi-exception to the rule that the 
term indicates that the user of it stands in the closest 
relation to Jesus, and acknowledges Him as his Su- 
perior Officer — Chief, Commander, Master, Leader. 
This quasi-exception occurs in the case of the ten 
lepers who, we are told, lifted up their voices and 
said, “ Jesus, Leader, have mercy on us.” Perhaps 
there is an intention to convey the impression that 
these lepers, formally at least, recognized the authority 
of Jesus completely. We cannot account 5^ another 
such exception, since the whole tone of the narrative 
indicates that this was not the first call of Peter to 
become Jesus’ disciple (cf. Jno i^^), but his call to 
become Jesus’ constant companion. There is no such 
direct use of Jesus in Luke (or in Mk) as in Matthew 
of the figurative expression ‘ Master of the House ’ 

Teacher’ is in 3^2 employed as an address to John the Baptist; 
and the Jewish Rabbis in the temple are called ‘Teachers’ in 2^®. 

When Wellhausen on says ^^^E-Kiardra (and xopte) is used 
in Luke by the disciples; diddffxaXs by others,” he is thus substan- 
tially right. Cf. Plummer on 5^, where the meaning of the word is 
discussed. 


lOI 


The Designations in Luke 

' (^ohodeanoTTj^) ^ although the term occurs in parables 
with reference to Him (13^® 

The prevailing form of address to Jesus in Luke is, 
however, the ordinary Greek honorific ‘ Lord ’ ( xupte ) , 
^ , used, however, obviously as an honor- 

^ Addrws especially high connotation. It 

is put upon the lips, indeed, of out- 
siders, suitors for mercy (5^^ 7® 18^^ 19^) and possibly 
others 13^^) ; and our Lord’s own remark to 

the effect that some called Him ‘ Lord, Lord,’ who 
did not do the things He said (6^®) shows that it 
might be insincerely used of Him. But this very 
passage also indicates that to address Him as ‘ Lord ’ 
i^was to acknowledge His authority and involved sub- 
jection to His commandments, and accordingly the 
term is represented as employed chiefly by His pro- 
fessed followers (5® ii^ 12^^ 17®"^ 22®®’®®’^^). 

Something of its high implication, when so used, may 
be caught from 5® in comparison with 5^ When our 
Lord, having used Simon’s boat for a pulpit, com- 
manded him to let down his nets for a draught, Simon 
responded with the respectful address which implied 
that he recognized Jesus as his ‘Superior Officer’ 
{iTuaTdrrjQ) ^ “Master, we toiled all night, and took 
nothing: but at Thy word I will let down the nets.” 
But when he saw the resultant miraculous draught, he 
fell at Jesus’ knees and said: “ Depart from me; for 
I am a sinful man, O Lord ” — using now the higher 
honorific, ‘ Lord ’ ( ) .* Obviously the address 

® Streatfeild, Self -Interpretation of Jesus Christ, p. 99 note, is clearly 
in the wrong in supposing that the change from intardra of v. 5 to 
xvpie of V. 8 has no significance; and the occasional interchange of 
the terms, noted by Dalman as appealed to by Streatfeild, does not 


102 


The Designations of Our Lord 


‘ Lord ’ on the lips of Jesus’ followers was charged 
with very high significance, and this is borne out in 
its entire use. 

Such a constant mode of address as ‘ Lord ’ by His 

followers, naturally would beget the habit of speaking 

,, ,, of Tesus among themselves as ‘the 

* Lord * as an T j ? ^ r i 

Appellative Lord ; and we can feel no surprise 

therefore that Jesus, in giving them 
instructions how to reply to possible objections to their 
taking the ass He sent them for as He was about to 
enter Jerusalem, placed this designation on their lips. 
“ Say,” He said, “ the Lord hath need of him ” ( 19^^) ; 
and accordingly they said (v. 34), “The Lord hath 
need of him” (cf. This instruction is 

recorded by all the Synoptists, and the usage which 
it involves of the term ‘Lord’jof Jesus as an appella- 
tive designation might very well, therefore, have been 
illustrated in the narratives of them all. The copious 
designatory employment of the title ‘ Lord ’ of Christ, 
however, is characteristic of Luke.® It is placed on the 


interpose an obstacle. Cf. Godet on verse 8 : “ Peter here employs the 
more religious expression, Lord, which answers to his actual feelings ” ; 
and Plummer, verse 8; “The change from ^raffrara (see on verse 5) 
is remarkable and quite in harmony with the change of circumstances. 
It is the ‘ Master ’ whose orders must be obeyed, the ‘ Lord ’ whose 
holiness causes moral agony to the sinner (Dan 

9 Cf. Sven Herner, Die An^endung des W ortes xopto<^ im N. T., 
pp. 12, 13: “In contrast with Matthew and Mark, Luke speaks of Jesus 
by the designation x 6 pco(^ comparatively often. Even if 7I9.31 10^1 
22^1 24^ be neglected as more or less uncertain in the reading, and 19^^ 
as a parallel to Mt 21^, Mk n^, there remain nevertheless fourteen 
passages peculiar to Luke (71^ 12-12 1315 jy5,6 jge 1^8,34 

2261,61 24^^) which speak of Jesus by the designation of ‘Lord’: and 
to these may be added the expressions ‘the mother of my Lord’ (i*^) 
and ‘the Lord Christ’ (2II).” “It may be further remarked that 
although one of the uncertain passages enumerated (24^) belongs to 


The Designations In Luke 103 

lips of the disciples themselves in this designatory form 
at 24^^*, and it occurs in two passages in the opening 
chapters of the Gospel — in the elevated language of 
the angelic announcement in the combination, ‘ Christ 
the Lord’ or ‘the anointed Lord’ (2“), and in the 
response of Elisabeth ( in which she expresses her 
wondering awe that “ the mother of her Lord ” should 
come to her. Obviously in such usages the term con- 
notes a very high dignity, certainly Messianic at the least. 
It is also employed of Himself by our Lord in the 
question He is recorded by all the Synoptists as putting 
to the scribes as to the significance of David’s predic- 
tion of the Messiah as his ‘Lord’ (20^^®®'^*) — again, 
obviously with a high connotation. But the particu- 
larly significant fact in this connection is its current 
employment by Luke himself as an alternative narra- 
tive designation to the simple ‘ Jesus ’ jq1,s9,4i j j39 

1242 J^15 J^5,6 jgo J^8 22^^’®^). It does not seem easy 
to detect any special significance in the interchange of 
these designations; the reason for the passage from 
one to the other seems either purely literary or at least 
obscure. The meaning of the appearance of this nar- 
rative employment of the term in Luke seems, there- 
fore, to be merely that in the usage of Luke in his 
own person there emerges a reflection of a usage evi- 
dently common among the disciples of Jesus from the 
beginning, but not chancing to be copiously illustrated 

the time when Christ was, though resurrected, not yet manifested to 
His disciples, and one of the certain ones (24^4) is a word of the dis- 
ciples to whom the risen Lord had manifested Himself, yet all the 
others fall in the time before the resurrection. Although Luke men- 
tions Jesus, however, comparatively often by the designation ‘ Lord,* 
this is nevertheless far from his current designation of Him, as the 
names of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ meet us 112 times.” 


104 


The Designations of Our Lord 

In the personal literary manner of Mark and Matthew: 
the usage, namely, of currently speaking of Jesus as 
‘ the Lord.’ 

This implies, naturally, that Jesus stood to His dis- 
ciples for whatever the title ‘ Lord ’ meant to them. 

There Is Involved In It certainly the 
of^Lord^*^ recognition of His Messianic dignity, 
and there Is Included, therefore, the rec- 
ognition In Him of all that they saw In His Messianic 
dignity. So far, we suppose, we may be sure that, as 
has been suggested. He was thought of as ‘Lord’ In 
contrast to the earthly potentates who were claiming 
lordship of men, and especially In contrast with the 
emperor In Rome, the ‘ Lord ’ by way of eminence In 
all men’s mlnds.^° To Jesus, rather than to the em- 
peror, was allegiance due. But we must not forget 
that the allegiance expressed to Jesus rested on a spir- 
itual basis, while, perhaps. It Is going too far to sup- 
pose that the divine claims of the Imperial monarch 
were held clearly In mlnd.^^ The simplest thing to say 
Is that the term ‘ Lord ’ was applied to Jesus by Luke 
obviously with the deepest reverence and obviously as 
the expression of that reverence. 

Cf. Dalman, Words, 330: “When the Christians called Jesus 
6 xopto?, they will have meant that He is the true ‘ divine Lord ’ 
in opposition to the ‘ God and Lord ’ on the imperial throne of Rome. 
Luke’s frequent use of 6 xupto<$ is certainly intended in this sense. 
The phrase Xpiffro? xbpio<s used in his Gospel 2I1 (cf. Acts 2^6) de- 
fines the term Xpiaro^s in that sense for the reader.” Dalman is prob- 
ably thinking of “ Luke ” as representing a Gentile Christian usage. 
It is clear, on the contrary, that his is simply an aboriginal Christian 
usage — possibly with slightly changing— or enlarging — content, but 
with no essential alteration of meaning. 

11 On the employment of xbpto<; of the emperor and its signifi- 
cance see T. D. Woolsey in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1861, pp. 595-608. 


The Designations in Luke 105 

The full height of this reverence may be suggested 
to us by certain passages in which the term ‘ Lord ’ 
occurs in citations from the Old Testament, where its 
reference is to Jehovah, though in the citations it seems 
to be applied to Jesus. Like the other Synoptists, Luke 
cites, for instance, from Isaiah the promise of a voice 
crying in the wilderness, “ Make ye ready the way of 
the Lord, make His paths straight” (3^), and applies 
it to the coming of John the Baptist whom he rep- 
resents as preparing the way for Jesus’ manifestation. 
As in the case of the other evangelists, the inference 
lies close that by ‘ the Lord ’ here Luke means Jesus, 
^whose coming he thus identifies with the advent of 
( Jehovah and whose person he seems to identify with 
Jehovah.^** On the other hand, in passages like 
although the language is similar, it seems more natural 
to understand the term ‘ Lord ’ as referring to God 
Himself, and to conceive the speaker to be thinking of 
the coming of Jehovah to redemption in Jesus without 
necessary identification of the person of Jesus with 
Jehovah.^® The mere circumstance, however, that the 

12 Cf. Sven Herner, as cited, p. 11: “With a reference to our discus- 
sion of the citation in the passages in Matthew and Mark we hold it 
most probable that Christ is meant, and this view is more easily main- 
tained in the case of Luke than of Matthew because Luke compara- 
tively frequently uses the designation ‘Lord’ of Jesus.” Proceeding to 
discuss the parallel passage, he decides that there ‘ Lord ’ probably 
V refers to God the Father; which appears just. It does not follow, 
however, that Godet’s remark may not also be accepted : “ In saying 
the Lord Zacharias can only be thinking of the Messiah: but he could 
not designate Him by this name, unless, with Malachi, he recognized in 
His coming the appearing of Jehovah (cf. ii 7,43 2II)” — if this can be 
read of the advent of Jehovah in His Representative. 

Hahn says, rightly as we think, at “Not to be understood of 
the Messiah (Ambr., Beda, Euthym., Beng., Cast., Bisp., Schegg, 
Schanz) but of God”; and at “Not to be understood of the 


lo6 The Designatiofis of Our Lord 

reader Is led to pause over such passages and to con- 
sider whether they may not intend by their ‘ Lord ’ — 
who Is Jehovah — to Identify the person of Jesus with 
Jehovah, Is significant. We should never lose from 
sight the outstanding fact that to men familiar w^ith 
the LXX and the usage of ‘ Lord ’ as the personal 
name of the Deity there Illustrated, the tei*m ‘ Lord ’ 
was charged with associations of deity, so that a habit 
of speaking of Jesus as ‘ the Lord,’ by way of emi- 
nence, such as Is illustrated by Luke and certainly was 
current from the beginning of the Christian proclama- 
tion (19^^), was apt to carry with It Implications of 
deity which, If not rebuked or In some way guarded 
against, must be considered as receiving the sanction 
of Jesus Himself. 

The leading designations of Jesus in Luke, as In the 
other Synoptists, however, are, broadly speaking, Mes- 
sianic. In other words. It Is distlnc- 
« Prophet* tively as the Messiah that Luke sets 
forth Jesus and represents Him as hav- 
ing conceived of Himself and as having been revered 
by His followers. We find in Luke, as In the other 
Synoptists, to be sure, traces of a widespread recogni- 
tion of Him as a prophet 9*’^^). His followers 

set their hopes upon Him in that office (24^^) ; and 
Indeed with no uncertainty He Himself assumed the 

Messiah (Kiin., Ols., Bisp., Schanz), but of God’'; but, we think, 
wrongly at “By the xOpio^ there is here, just as in the Old Test, 
passage, to be understood, not the Messiah (Kiin., Bh, Haupt) but 
God, for Luke wishes to say that in the Messiah God would hold His 
own advent.” So far as the mere language goes, that might be ac- 
cepted: but the passage seems to mean otherwise (see Plummer per 
contra). Meyer has an excellent note on and decides rightly 

also at whom Weiss properly follows; so also Plummer. 


107 


The Designations in Luke 

role of a prophet (4-^ 13^^’^^). But no more In Luke 
than In the other Synoptlsts Is this particularly empha- 
sized, and In Luke, too, the prophetic character Is, no 
doubt, conceived as part of the Messianic function, — 
as Indeed the collocation of His prophetic calling and 
His redemption of Israel In the thought of the dis- 
ciples going to Emmaus not obscurely suggests 
(241^’^', cf. also 

Luke also records from the mouth of the angel 
announcing the birth of Jesus the new designation of 
‘ Saviour ’ — If we can call a deslgna- 

‘ Saviour’ tion new which Is so plainly adumbrated 
In a passage like Mt (cf. also Lk 
19^^) d® But this Is so little un-MessIanIc that It Is 
not only connected with the Messianic prophecies by 
adjacent references (i^h cf. 2^^ 3®), but Is expressly 
defined as Messianic In the annunciation Itself: “a 
Saviour, which Is Christ the Lord” (2^^). Like Mt 
this passage clearly Indicates that to the circle In 
which Jesus moved His coming as the Messiah was 
connected with the great series of prophecies which 
promised the advent of Jehovah for the redemption of 
His people, as truly as with those which predicted the 
coming of the Davldlc King. The terms, “ a Saviour, 
which Is Christ the Lord,” are. Indeed, an express 
combination of the two lines of prophecy, and import 

Cf. Meyer on 7^®: “They saw In this miracle a (TTjtietov of a 
great prophet, and in His appearance they saw the beginning of the 
Messianic deliverance (comp. i6S-79).» On the whole subject, cf. 
Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 126 seq. 

Cf. Plummer in loc.: “ Here first in N. T. is aioTTjp used of Christ, 
and here only in Luke. Not in Matthew or Mark, and only once in 
John (4^2) ; twice in Acts (s^i 132s) ; and frequently in Titus and 
2 Peter.” 


io8 The Designations of Our Lord 

that the Child who was born in the city of David was 
both the promised Redeemer of Israel and the 
Anointed King that was to come. Question may arise, 
indeed, as to how we are to construe these collocated 
designations. Some^® would wish us to take each sepa- 
rately, with an indefinite article to each : “ There is 
born to you a Saviour, who is an Anointed One, a 
Lord.” Others^’’' suggest that at least ‘ Messiah ’ and 
‘Lord’ be kept separate: “There is bom to you a 
Deliverer, who is Messiah, Lord.” In either of these 
constructions we have three separate designations which 
so far explain one another: this Child is at once a 
Saviour, the promised Messiah, and Sovereign Lord 
of men and angels — for it is an angel who speaks these 
words. The essential meaning cannot be far from this 
in any case.^® Even if we should read “ who is Mes- 
siah, the Lord, ” or even “ who is an anointed Lord,”^® 
we have got but little away from this general sense: 
in either case what is said is that the Saviour is the 
promised Messiah and therefore entitled to our obe- 
dience as our Lord. Nor is much more said if we 
give the phrase the utmost definiteness possible, and 
translate, “ There is born to you this day in the city 
of David that Deliverer who is the Messiah, the 
Lord,”’^® — as, on the whole, we think we ought to read 

E.g. Holtzmann, Weiss. 

E.g. Meyer. 

“ In any event,” says Weiss, “ it is meant that this Deliverer is an 
Anointed Lord, and therefore destined to be the King of Israel.” But 
Weiss, who wishes to read only, “ a Deliverer who is an Anointed 
One, a Lord,” takes too low a view. 

E.g. Paulus. 

20 So Hahn: “ffwrtjpt not *a Deliverer’ (Paulus, Meyer, Bleek, 
Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, Keil, Nosgen, Holtzmann), but ^ the Deliv- 


109 


The Designations in Luke 


It, In the light of the distinction made between the two 
designations ‘ Messiah ’ and ‘ Lord ’ in such a passage 
as Acts 2^^ where Peter declares to the house of Israel 
“^that God has made Jesus both ‘ Lord ’ and ‘ Christ.’ 
The precise distinction Intended to be signalized be- 
^tween ‘ Christ ’ and ‘ Lord ’ Is, no doubt, difficult to 
trace : perhaps there lies In it a testimony to the wider 
content of the Idea of Messlahship than that of mere 
sovereign power; perhaps a testimony to a higher con- 
notation of the term ‘ Lord ’ than that of mere Mes- 
sianic dignity. In any event there Is here a declaration 
that In this Child born In the city of David, the func- 
tions of Redemption, Messlahship and Supreme Lord- 
ship are united. 

Almost Immediately afterward we are told that It 
had been revealed to Simeon that “ he should not see 
death before he had seen the Lord’s 
'^Christ’’’'* Christ” (2^'’)— an Old Testament ex- 
presslon (Ps 2“, cf. Lk 9“^ Acts 4“®) 
here applied to the Infant Jesus, who Is by It Identified 
as the promised Messlah.^^ Accordingly In announcing 
the birth of this Child, who Is thus so emphatically 
presented as the Messiah, the angel is represented as 


erer’ (Luther, De Wette). The article is wanting not from inadver- 
tence (De Wette), but because it is made superfluous by the succeeding 
relative clause. The sense is: ‘the particular Deliverer, who’ . . . 
This Deliverer is characterized by the Xptffrd? xopio<$ as the prom- 
ised Messiah. We are not to explain: ‘a Messiah, a Lord ’ (Holtzmann) ; 
and not: ‘one anointed to Lordship’ (Paulus) ; but the two expres- 
sions are two separate designations of the expected Messiah (cf. Acts 
2^^) :Xpi(TT()<; the then popularly current name of the Messiah; xopto?, 
the designation of His Sovereign dignity.” 

21 Hahn, “God’s chosen and appointed Messiah”; Meyer, “God’s 
destined and sent Messiah ” ; Weiss, “ God’s anointed and sent 
Messiah.” 


I lO 


The Designations of Our Lord 

describing Him as ‘ the Son of the Most High God,’ 
to whom should be given the throne of His father 
David, for an everlasting dominion (i^^) ; and as ex- 
plaining the Divine Sonship of this Holy Child^^ as 
due to, or rather as evidenced b}^. His supernatural 
birth The latter of these two declarations is 

clearly the explanation of the former. The angel had 
promised Mary that she should bring forth a son who 
should rightly bear the great name of the ‘ Son of the 
Most High God,’ and he now explains that this Holy 
Son of hers shall be a supernatural product, and should 
by His supernatural advent be witnessed as rightly 
bearing the name of ‘ Son of God.’ That the title 
‘ Son of God ’ bears in it a Messianic implication is 
clear from the functions ascribed in verses 33, 34 to the 
child so designated, but that this Messiah was con- 
ceived as something more than human appears to be 
implied in the connection of His claim upon the title 
of ‘ Son of God ’ with the supernaturalness of His birth. 
Perhaps it is not reading too much into the passage 
to say that His preexistence and heavenly descent are 
asserted, — certainly His heavenly, or supernatural, 
origin is asserted. This ‘ Son ’ is not merely to be at- 
tended with supernatural assistance and so to exhibit 
supernatural gifts: He is of supernatural origin, and 
therefore so far of supernatural nature. Already in 
the opening chapters of his Gospel, devoted to an ac- 
count of the birth and infancy of Jesus, therefore, Luke 
makes it plain that the Jesus whose history he is to 
recount was first of all the Messiah of God, and as 

22 So {not, that which is begotten shall be called holy, the Son of 
God) Bengel, Bleek, Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann, Godet, Hahn. 


Ill 


The Designations in Luke 

such was of supernatural origin and therefore holy, was 
to establish the throne of David in perpetuity, and was 
to be recognized as Lord of men and angels. 

In accordance with these declarations, recorded In 
the opening of the Gospel, Luke tells us that the evil 
spirits knew Jesus to be ‘ the Christ’ and greeted Him 
by the title ‘Son of God’ (4^^), and records Peter’s 
great confession in the form of “ Thou art the Christ 
of God” (9^®), and Jesus’ ready acceptance of it, as 
also His acquiescence in the ascription of the title of 
Messiah, ‘ Christ,’ to Him by Plis enemies (‘ the 
Christ,’ 22®’^, cf. 23^^ ‘Christ a King,’ 23^). Such 
an ascription of the title ‘ Christ ’ to Him by His ene- 
mies (22^^ 23-’^^’^^) is the best of all proofs that it was 
commonly employed of Him by Llis followers. But 
the significant fact for us is that in accepting it at their 
hands Jesus claims it for Himself (22®' 23*). We are 
not surprised, therefore, to find Him using it of Him- 
self when, after His resurrection. He expounded from 
Scripture to His followers the doctrine of the Suffering 
Messiah and applied it to Himself (24"®’^®), even as 
He had at an earlier point expounded to the scribes 
(20^^) the doctrine of the Reigning Messiah with an 
equally clear application of it to Himself. He who 
was David’s ‘ Lord ’ as truly as his ‘ Son ’ was to 
enter upon His Lordship only through suffering, a suf- 
fering which should lay the basis of a preachment in 
His name of repentance and remission of sins (24^®). 
Here again is the Saviour, who is the Messiah, the 
Lord: and the Gospel ends much on the same note 
on which it began. 

The royal dignity of this ‘Anointed King’ (23“) is 


I 12 


The Designations of Our Lord 

of course dwelt upon in Luke as In the other Synoptics. 

But the precise term ‘ King ’ Is not of 
‘The King’ frequent occurrence. His disciples as 

He entered Jerusalem on the ass’s colt 
acclaimed Him as “ the King that cometh In the name 
of the Lord ” (19^^), and when the Pharisees appealed 
to Him to rebuke them therefor — employing the sim- 
ple formula of respect, ‘ Teacher,’ In addressing Him 
and thereby repudiating His Messianic claim by the 
contrast of this address with the title of ‘ King ’ — 
Jesus was so far from yielding to their request that 
He declared that If His disciples held their peace the 
very stones would cry out and recognize Him as the 
Messianic sovereign (cf. Lk 3®, Mt 3®). Similarly, 
when the Jews accused Him to Pilate as representing 
Himself to be “Christ, a King” (23“),*^ and that 
governor accordingly demanded of Him whether He 
was ‘ the King of the Jews,’ our Lord was so far from 
denying the ascription that He expressly accepted the 
designation (23^), and thus brought It about that He 
was mocked on the cross by this title, and had It set 
over His head (23^^’^®). The equivalent title ‘Son 
of David ’ also Is recorded as having been given Him 
by an applicant for His mercy as a recognition of His 
authority to heal (18^®’^^, cf. means 

repudiated when ) Jesus explained that He 

was something much more than David’s son. 

23 So Holtzmann, Weiss and others. Weiss: ‘“King Messiah,’ or 

more naturally, ‘Messiah, a King’ (cf. on 2^^), so that the political 
significance of the Messianic title expressly explained is made to tell.” 
That is to say, Jesus has declared Himself to be ‘ Christ,’ which is the 
same as to say ‘ King.’ The term ‘ Christ ’ is employed appellatively, 
but so that it might easily be taken as a proper name, as it was taken 
(see Matthew) by Pilate. Hahn less naturally wishes to read “an 
anointed Kine.” It would be more natural to take ‘Christ’ as a 


The Designations in Luke 113 

In the midst of the designations we have somewhat 
rapidly adduced, clustering around the central title 
‘ Christ,’ there is one which we should 

* God’s Elect ’ not pass over unnoticed because it has 
not met us heretofore. The mocking 
Jews, scoffing at Jesus as He hung on the cross, are 
represented as flinging in His face His claim to be 
‘the Christ of God, His Chosen^ (23^^). The same 
designation occurs in the account of the transfiguration, 
where the voice from heaven is represented by Luke 
as declaring of Jesus, “ This is my Son, my Chosen ’’ 
(9^^). No doubt the Greek is not quite the same in 
each instance : b exXexroQ of the one is replaced by 
6 exXsXeyfj.ivo(: in the other.^^ But doubtless the under- 
lying Messianic title is the same in both instances. It 
is rooted in Isaiah 42^ “ Behold my servant whom I 
uphold; my chosen in whom my soul delighteth,” etc. 
(where the parallel terms are o ;ra?c and blxXexrb^)^ 
and emerges into view even in pre-Christian Jewish 
usage (Enoch 40^ 45^ 53® 39^, etc.).^® The conception 
seems to be not essentially different from a designation 
which has already met us in Mark (i^^) and which 
occurs also in the parallel passage of Luke (4^^), but 
elsewhere in the New Testament only at Jno 6®^ — ‘ the 
Holy One of God.’ For it does not seem likely that 
‘ G d’s epithet, in the first instance at least, 

\Holy°oL’ refers to the moral purity of the Mes- 
siah,^® but rather probable that it des- 
ignates Him as One whom God has “ separated out, 

24 Cf. on these terms and on the general matter, W. C. Allen, Hast- 
ings’ D. C. G., I. 308. 

2^ Cf. Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 112; Bousset, Die Religion des 
Judentums, p. 249; Schurer, Je<vdsh People, etc,, II. 2. p. 158. 

23 So Keil on Lk 4®^. 


1 14 The Designations of Our Lord 

equipped and dedicated to His service, in a word 
as ‘ the Consecrated One.’ In this understanding of 
it, it stands in close relation to the epithet, ‘ the Elect 
One,’ and unites with it in emphasizing the unique 
loftiness of the Messianic office. At the same time it 
seems difficult to believe that there is no implication of 
moral purity, or perhaps we would better say moral 
exaltation, in the epithet, as used whether by Peter 
(Jno 6^’^) or by the demoniacs (Mk Lk 4^^), al- 
though this reference may be secondary. It is scarcely 
conceivable that the demons could recognize a mere 
official-standing on sight (Mk 3^^), while the contrast 
between the moral perfection or exalted nature of 

27 Xhis language is borrowed from Holtzmann, Hand-Corn., p. 76: 
“ The demon recognizes in Him the Holy One of God, i.e., Him whom 
God has separated out, equipped and dedicated to His service (cf. Jno 
669 io 36 — the ‘Elect One’ of the Book of Enoch), whom the demoniacs 
(Mk 3I1) immediately recognize and fear as such: for the Messiah’s 
task is to judge and destroy the demons (the evil spirit speaks in the 
name of his fellows, too, ‘us’). They divine, therefore, at once Jesus’ 
greatness and their own fate.” In this view it is not the moral purity 
Vof Jesus over against their wickedness that the demons divine; but 
the official task of Jesus which they are aware of. Similarly Ernst 
Issel, Der Begrijf der Heiligkeit im N. T., 1887, p. 67 seq.: “In Mk 
cf. Lk 4^^, we have the most original application of the notion [of 
holiness] to Jesus. The title ‘the Holy One of God’ is clearly a 
well known one, on hearing which no one could be in doubt who was 
meant. The same evangelist [Mk], at 3I1, opens the way to under- 
standing it by recording that the demons cried out ‘ Thou art the Son 
of God.’ That, however, is the title of the theocratic King . . . 

In the title of the theocratic ruler, the eye is just as little directed by 
the ‘ holy ’ to ethical perfection as in the expression ‘ Son of God.’ 
The Messiah is ‘the Holy One of God,’ as He whom the Father has 
sanctified, Jno 10^®, that is, as He whom God has chosen and endowed 
for His special possession and service. There speaks for this also the 
designation ‘ the Chosen One,’ Lk 23^® 9^®. To this election to God’s 
possession and service limits itself also the designation in Lk 1^® . . . 
and the representation of Jesus in the Temple, Lk 2-^ . . 


The Desiznations in Luke 


115 


Jesus and their uncleanness may be presumed to have 
obtruded itself upon their consciousness, whenever they 
were brought into His presence.^^ Along with these 
titles we must note also that Luke, too, makes use of 
the title ‘ the Beloved,’ though only at the baptism of 
our Lord (3^^), replacing it at the transfiguration by 
‘ the Chosen One ’ (9^^), and thus exhibiting the essen- 
tial synonymy of the two.^® 

It may be profitable to recall at this point that the epi- 
thet ‘ holy ’ is applied to our Lord also at the annun- 

, ciation of His birth by the angel, when 
Meaning o£ . 1 • 1 1 • , • 

‘Holy’ explained that it was the circum- 

stance that Llis birth was not according 
to nature, but due to the coming down upon Mary of 
the Holy Ghost and the overshadowing of her by the 
power of the Most High, which justified the Holy 
Thing which was being begotten in being called ‘ the 
Son of God’ The epithet is not elsewhere 

applied to Jesus in this Gospel, except in 2^^ where 
the precept of the law is quoted in reference to Llim, 
that “ every male that openeth the wom^b shall be 
Xcalled holy to the Lord ” — where it is obviously the 
X, conception of consecration which is prominent. In the 
present passage, however, it seems equally plain that it 
is not the notion of being set apart for God so much 
^as that of being in Himself worthy of reverence and 
calling out veneration which is prominent. He who 
is thus supernaturally born is “ holy ” in the sense that 
He brings with Him something of the superhuman 

28 On the title ‘ Holy One of God ’ see J. B. Bristow, Hastings’ 
D. C. G., I. 730-31. He thinks it connects Jesus with God the Holy 
One; but in these passages refers particularly to Christ’s dedication to 
a mission. 

28 Cf. J. A. Robinson, as cited, esp. Eph., pp. 229 seq. 


ii6 The Designations of Our Lord 

character belonging to His origin, and is thus not set 
apart among men, but is by nature distinguished from 
men — shall we not say, “separate from sinners 
Nevertheless, the title ‘ Son of God ’ as applied to our 
Lord in Luke is closely connected with His Messianic 
office : though, of course, it is not limited to that office 
in its implications. It occurs in this precise form but 
seldom. Besides the declaration of the announcing 
angel that He shall be called the ‘ Son of the Most 
High’ ( — evidently with a Messianic connotation, 
as the subsequent context shows, but by no means 
equally evidently with none but a human connotation, 
as also the subsequent context assures us — it 

occurs only in the narrative of the Temptation, on the 
lips of Satan (4^’^),®^ and elsewhere on the lips of 
evil spirits 8^® ‘Son of the Most High God’) 

who knew He was the Christ, and in the mouth of 
His judges when they adjured Him to tell whether 
He were ‘ the Christ,’ and on His answering that they 
should from thenceforth see Him, ‘ the Son of Man,’ 
seated at the right hand of God, demanded afresh, 
“ Art thou, then, the Son of God? ” (22’^^).^’^ It seems 
clear, indeed, from these passages that the title ‘ Son 
of God ’ was conceived as a Messianic title, and so 
far as the synonym of the simple ‘ Christ ’ ; but it is 

30 Knowling, The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 1905, p. 314, 
thinks the epithet here means frankly “ sinlessness ” (cf. Plummer in 
loc.). Perhaps, however, while this implication of “holiness” cannot 
be excluded, it is going too far to find it prominent here. 

31 Cf. Plummer in loc.: “ The reference is to the relation to God 
rather than to the office of the Messiah. The emphatic word is ul6(^.” 

32 Cf. Plummer in loc.: “In the allusion to Daniel 713 they recognize 
a claim to divinity, and they translate 6 ulu? zoo dvOpconoo into 6 uld<$ 
TOO dsoo. But it is not clear whether by the latter they mean the 
Messiah or something higher.” 


The Designations in Luke 117 

difficult not to gather from them also that It gave 
expression Vj a higher Messianic conception than was 
conveyed by the simple ‘ Christ.’ The brief conversa- 
tion recorded as taking place between our Lord and 
His judges seems to have, in fact, the precise purport 
that in accepting the designation of ‘ the Christ ’ He 
does so in such a manner as to pour Into it a higher 
content than His judges were willing to accord to it 
— a higher content which they felt was more appro- 
priately expressed by another title, — the ‘ Son of God.’ 
Whence it seems to follow that ‘ Son of God,’ while a 
current Messianic designation, was a Messianic desig- 
nation charged with a higher connotation than merely 
that of the Messianic King — a conclusion we have al- 
ready drawn from 1 22.35 33 

The higher connotation of Sonship to God is, how- 
ever, in Luke, as in the other Synoptists, most clearly 
expressed by the undefined term ‘ Son.’ 

‘The Son* Luke, as well as the others, records 
the divine proclamation of the Sonship 
of Jesus from heaven, on the occasion as well of His 
baptism as of His transfiguration : “ Thou art my 
Son, the Beloved; in thee I am well pleased” (3^^), 
“This is my Son, the Chosen” (9^^) : and gives us 
the parable in which Jesus, with evident reference to 
Himself (20^^’^^), talks of the wicked husbandmen, to 
whom, after they had evil-entreated his servants, the 
lord of the vineyard sent in the end his ‘ beloved son ’ 
who was the heir. Luke also records a number of 

This seems to be the truth in the view of such commentators as 
Godet and Hahn, as over against those who, like Weiss, insist that 
* Son of God ’ is " only another Messianic designation.” It is only 
another Messianic designation; but a Messianic designation charged 
with a higher Messianic conception as its content. 


ii8 The Designations of Our Lord 

those pregnant sayings in which Jesus appeals to God 
as in a unique sense His ‘ Father and he begins this 
series of pregnant sayings at so early a period as to 
make it clear to us that it represents a unique filial con- 
sciousness coeval with the dawn of our Lord’s intelli- 
gence. Already in His earliest youth He could speak 
of being “ in His Father’s house ” as His natural place 
of abode even as in later life He lived in con- 

stant communion with the Father ( 23^^’^®), 
and equally naturally spoke of “ the kingdom His 
Father had appointed Him” (22^^), and at the end 
spoke of His readiness to send forth “ the promise of 
His Father” (24^^). The glory He expected to enter, 
It is to be observed, was no less His own than His 
Father’s glory (22“^). But above all, Luke records 
for us that remarkable passage in which our 

Lord declares the perfect mutual knowledge which ex- 
ists between the ‘ Father ’ and ‘ Son,’ by virtue of which 
the ‘ Son ’ is constituted the sole adequate revealer of 
the ‘ Father ’ — that ‘ Son ’ to whom all things were 
declared by His ‘ Father’: on the basis of which He 
announces that the things seen and heard in Him are 
the things which prophets and kings have desired to 
see and hear and have not. The phraseology in which 
Luke repeats this great saying differs slightly from that 
found in Matthew. But the two evangelists agree in 
all that is essential. In both It Is unlimitedly “ all 
things ” that are said to have been delivered by the 
‘ Father ’ to the ‘ Son,’ so that God Is affirmed to hold 
back nothing, but to share all that He has with the 

24 Cf. Plummer in loc.: “ It is notable that the first recorded words 
of the Messiah are an expression of His Divine Sonship as man; and 
His question implies that they knew it, or ought to know it.” 


The Designations in Luke 119 

‘ Son.’^® In both the intimate knowledge of the ‘ Father ’ 
and ‘ Son ’ of each other is affirmed to be alike com- 
plete, exhaustive and unbrokenly continuous. In both 
the ‘ Son ’ is represented to be the sole source of knowl- 
edge of God. But in Luke it is said, not that the 
Father ’ and ‘ Son ’ know each other, but that each 
knows “ what the other is,” that is to say, all that each 
is. It would be difficult to frame a statement which 
could more sharply assert the essential deity of the 
‘ Son.’3® 

Our Lord’s own favorite designation of Himself is, 
however, in Luke as in the other Synoptists, ‘ the Son 
of Man ’ ; and as in the other Synop- 
‘SonofMan’ designation is in Luke exclu- 

sively a self-designation of Jesus’ own. 
For obviously when the angel at the empty tomb is 
represented as saying, “ Remember how He spake unto 

35 The emphasis is on the unlimited ndvra] cf. Hahn: “Jesus gives 
expression accordingly primarily to the general idea, that God has 
held back nothing for Himself, but has made the Son participant in all 
that is peculiar to Himself. These first words form the ground for 
what follows. The emphasis in them is not on the fxot (Weiss), nor 
on the i)7td rou 7carp6<$ (Hofmann), but on Trdvra.” 

Cf. Plummer in loc.: “It is impossible upon any principles of 
criticism to question its genuineness, or its right to be regarded as 
among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists. And it 
contains the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. It is like 
‘an aerolite from the Johannine heaven’ (Hase, Gesch, Jesu, p. 527); 
and for that very reason causes perplexity to those who deny the soli- 
darity between the Johannine heaven and the Synoptic earth.” It should 
be compared with the following passages: Jno 3^^ 6^® 8^® lo^s.so 
i 615 176,10^ and cf. further, Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 109; Keim Jes. 
of Naz., IV. 63 referred to by Plummer. Godet says strikingly that 
Jesus’ words here “become an echo of the joys of His eternal genera- 
tion.” He means doubtless that the continuous interchange of perfect 
mutual knowledge here set forth is a reflection of the essential relation 
of Father and Son to one another. 


120 


The Designations of Our Lord 

you when He was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of 
Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful 
men, and be crucified and the third day rise again ” 
(24'^), — this is not an instance of the employment of 
this title by another than Jesus, but only another at- 
tribution of it to Jesus. The title occurs in Luke about 
twenty-five times, and in the same collocations and 
with the same import as in the other Synoptists. If 
we attempt, therefore, to derive from the substance 
of the passages in which it is employed a notion of the 
conception which was attached to it, we arrive at the 
same conclusion as in the case of the other Synoptists. 
In Luke, the purpose of the coming of the ‘ Son of 
Man ’ is declared in the form, “ The Son of Man came 
to seek and to save that which was lost” (19^®). Ac- 
cordingly human destiny is connected absolutely with 
the relations of men to Him. Those are blessed whom 
men hate and ostracise and reproach, casting out their 
name as evil, if it be for the ‘ Son of Man’s ’ sake 
(6“^). For everyone who shall confess Him before 
men, him shall the ‘ Son of Man ’ confess before the 
angels of God (12®); and on the other hand every 
one who denies the ‘ Son of Man ’ in the presence of 
men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of 
God (12®), and whosoever shall be ashamed of the 
‘ Son of Man ’ and of His words, of him shall the 
‘ Son of Man ’ be ashamed when He comes in His 
own glory and that of the Father and of the holy 
angels (9^®). That nevertheless blasphemy against 
the ‘ Son of Man ’ may be forgiven as blasphemy 
against the Spirit may not (12^^), doubtless belongs to 

3T ^24 56.22 y34 g22,26,44,68 u30 128 , 10,40 iy22,24,26,30 jgS.Sl j^lO 

2i27,36 2222,48,69 [24T], 


I2I 


The Designations in Luke 

the humility of His earthly life before He has come 
in His glory. For in this life He comports Himself 
like other men, eating and drinking (7^^), passing a 
hard and suffering existence (9^^), and so fulfilling the 
Scriptures Meanwhile, however. He ex- 

ercises even on earth the authority to regulate religious 
observances (6^) and to forgive sins (5^^). In other 
words, the sufferings He endures (9^^ 22^^) are not 
the result of fate or chance, and do not belong to Him 
by right, but are voluntarily undertaken as part of His 
mission 17^® 24'^). They issue in death in- 

deed (9^^ 18"^ 22^^ 24"^), but after death comes resur- 
rection (9^^ 18^^ 24"^); and after resurrection, in 

its own good time, a return in His appropriate glory 
(22®^ 9^® 12^^* 1 ^ 22,24 jg8 2 j 27 22®^). The humiliation 
over, at once the ‘ Son of Man ’ is seated at the right 
hand of the power of God (22®^), and when He comes 
again He will come “ in a cloud with great power and 
glory” (21^^), — a glory described as “ His own glory, 
and the glory of His Father and of the holy angels ” 
(9^®). The suddenness of this coming is adverted to 
(12^^ jy 22 - 24 , 26 , 3 o^ ^ main fact emphasized, that 

it is in point of significance the day of judgment, when 
the destinies of men shall be finally assigned them by 
the ‘ Son of Man ’ (21^® 12® 9^®) : destinies which shall 
be determined according to the attitude which each has 
occupied towards the ‘ Son of Man ’ on earth (12® (f ^) . 
To all His enemies it is therefore a day of vengeance 
(18®), and only as one prevails to stand before the 
‘ Son of Man ’ can he hope to escape the dread which 
His coming brings to the earth (12^®). The picture, 
it will be seen, is the picture of a Redeemer and Ad- 
juster who comes in humiliation to save, and returns 


122 


The Designations of Our Lord 

in glory to gather up the results of His work and 
finally to adjust the issues of the historical development 
of the world. Whence does He come to save? There 
is no plain declaration. We are left to infer it from 
the obvious connection of the title with the oracle of 
Daniel 7^^, from the more narrative portions of the 
Gospel, as e. g., the opening chapters where the super- 
natural birth of Jesus is set forth in detail and with 
all its implications, and from the very clear suggestion 
that the whole career of the ‘ Son of Man,’ in its 
earthly manifestation and its subsequent glory alike, 
is of a piece and is the outworking of a definite plan 
of action held clearly in His own mind from the 
first and carried firmly out in every detail of His 
living. 

The sense of His mission which is thus inherent In 
the favorite Messianic designation He applied to Hlm- 
, , self finds expression also In other forms 

Tcsiis^ • ^ 

Mission locution which Luke reports our 

Lord as employing. Thus, for ex- 
ample, He Is reported as speaking of Himself repeat- 
edly as “ coming ” with obvious pregnancy of meaning, 
possibly with some reference to the expectation of the 
Messianic coming which found embodiment In the des- 
ignation of the Messiah as ‘ the One to Come,’ — a des- 
ignation In Luke also reported as applied to Jesus 
hypothetically by John the Baptist (7^^’“®), — but cer- 
tainly with Its chief Implication In a profound sense of 
His mission ([3^®] 4^^ 5^^ 7^^ [cf. 7^^ of John the Bap- 
tist], 19^^), and possibly with some contrast In 
mind with His second coming (9“® [12^® 18® 21^’^). 

Without essential difference of meaning this “ coming ” 
is Interchanged with “ being sent ” — the author of the 


The Designations in Luke 123 

“ mission ” being thus more clearly indicated as God. 
Thus Luke varies Mark’s language (i^^) in recording 
our Lord’s declaration that “ He had come forth ” spe- 
cifically to preach, by giving it rather: “ for there- 
fore was He sent” (4^^) — plainly indicating that 
“ came ” and “ was sent ” alike refer to His divine 
mission.^® Possibly in this variation there is an allusion 
to the passage from Isaiah which Jesus read in the 
synagogue at Nazareth (cf. Lk 4^®), but in any event 
the term is unambiguous, and is elsewhere repeated (9^^ 
10^^), and from it we may at least learn that according 
to the representation in Luke also Jesus prosecuted His 
work on earth under a sense of performing step by 
step a task which had been given Him to do and which 
He had come into the world to perform. 

We need call attention only in passing to the record 
by Luke also of Jesus’ employment of the fig- 

ure of the ‘ Bridegroom ’ with refer-’* 

‘Bridegroom’ Himself and His relations to 

God’s people, thus declared to be His 
Bride, as they were currently represented as the Bride 
of Jehovah in the Old Testament. In this remarkable 
saying, preserved in all three of the Synoptics and as- 
signed by all of them to the earlier portion of His 
ministry, we have evidence not only that Jesus regarded 
His ministry as a mission He had come to perform, 
and already knew that it involved His death, but that 
He conceived this mission as Messianic and the Mes- 
siahship as a dndne function, so that His coming was 

38 Cf. Weiss on Lk 4 ^^ ; “ Luke therefore already interprets the 
of Mark incorrectly of His divine Mission.” But perhaps 
Weiss dees not know the true meaning of the expression in Mark as 
well as Lake did! 


124 Desiguatious of Our Lord 

the coming of Jehovah, the faithful husband of His 
people (Hos 

The general impression left on the mind by this 
series of designations is that Luke was less interested 
in the preexistence of our Lord than in His divine 
qualit}' and the divine nature of His mission. To him 
Jesus was the authoritative Teacher, the God-appointed 
Messiah, the heaven-sent Redeemer from sin and di- 
vine Founder of the Kingdom of righteousness, the 
Judge of all the earth. Lord of men and angels, and 
God’s own Son, between whom and the Father there 
persists unbroken and perfect communion. If there 
is scarcely as full a witness to these things in his gen- 
eral narrative as meets us in Matthew, there is an air 
thrown over the whole of settled conviction which is 
very striking; and the reader carries away with him 
the impression that the engrossment of the evangelist 
with his narrative represses much more testimony to the 
divine dignity of the Messiah than actually finds ex- 
pression in his pages. 

Cf. Godet in loc.y E. T., p. 276: “This remarkable sa}'ing was 
preserved with literal exactness in the tradition ; accordingly we find 
it in identical words in the three S^moptists. It proves, first, that from 
the earliest period of His ministix- Jesus regarded Himself as the Mes- 
siah; next, that He identified His coming with that of Jehovah, the 
husband of Israel and of mankind (Hos 2^®, see Gess, Christi Zeugniss, 
pp. 19, 20) ; lastly, that at that time He already foresaw and an- 
nounced His violent death.” Godet adds: “It is an error, therefore, to 
oppose on these three points, the founh Gospel to the other three.” 


THE JESUS OF THE SYNOPTISTS 


Variety of 
Titles Used 


There has now passed under our observation the 
whole series of designations applied to Jesus in the 
Synoptic Gospels. They are somewhat 
numerous, but all to much the same 
effect: and they unite to suggest a uni- 
tary conception of His person of the highest exaltation. 
Our Lord is called in these Gospels, ‘ Jesus, ‘ Jesus 
of Nazareth,’^ ‘ the Nazarene,’^ ‘ Jesus the Galilean,’^ 
‘ Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee,’^ ‘ Jesus 
surnamed Christ.’® ‘ Jesus Christ,’® ‘ Jesus the Son of 
David,’^ ‘ Jesus King of the Jews,’^ ‘ Jesus, Master,’^ 
‘ Jesus the Son of the Most High God.’® He is ad- 
dressed respectfully, passing up into reverently, by the 
titles of ‘ Rabbi,’® ‘ Rabboni,’® ‘ Teacher ( oiddffy.ah) ^ 
‘Master’^ {^Tzcardza) ^ ‘Lord’ '} and He is 

spoken of by Himself or others by the correspond- 
ing appellatives, ‘Teacher,’^ ‘Guide’ { 
‘House-Master’ (o//o(^£<T;r6r2yc) ‘ Lord.’^ obviously 

with the highest implications these appellatives are 
capable of bearing. More specifically He is described 
as to His office and person by a long series of recog- 
nized Messianic titles: '"‘the Coming One,’"^ ‘the 
Prophet,^ ‘ the Christ,’^ ‘ the King of the Jews,’^ ‘ the 
King of Israel,’® ‘ the King,’"^ ‘ the Son of David,’^ ‘ the 


^ Matthew, Mark, Luke. ® Matthew. ® Mark, Luke. 

2 Matthew, Mark. ^ Luke. « Mark. 

Matthew, Luke. 

125 


126 The Designations of Our Lord 

Son of Abraham,’^ ‘ God’s Chosen One,’^ ‘ the Holy 
One of God,’® ‘ the Servant of God,’® ‘ the Son 

of God,’^ ‘ the Son of the Blessed,’® ‘ the Son of the 
Most High,’^ ‘ the Son of the Most High God,’® ‘ the 
Son of the Living God,’® ‘ God’s Son,’^ ‘ the Son,’^ 

‘ the Son of Man,’^ ‘ the Saviour who is Christ the 
Lord,’^ ‘ Immanuel,’® ‘ the Shepherd who is God’s Fel- 
low,’® ‘ the Bridegroom,’^ ‘ the Beloved.’^ ^ 

We have spoken of these designations as recognized 
Messianic titles. They emerge as such on the pages 
of the Gospel narrative. But it is nat- 

Jewish Use actual use as such by 

the Jews contemporary with our Lord 
admits of illustration from the very scanty remains of 
their literature which has come down to us in very vary- 
ing measures. Suffice it to say that those of them which 
are most frequently found in the Gospel narrative and 
which seem most significant for it, already occur in the 
narrow compass of the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse 
of Baruch, 4 Esra, and the Psalms of Solomon : ‘ the 
Christ,’ ‘ the Son of David,’ ‘ the Chosen One of God,’ 
‘ the Son of God,’ ‘ the Son of Man.’® The matter is 
of no great importance and requires to be noted chiefly 
that the richness of the Messianic vocabulary capable 
of being intelligibly employed in Jesus’ day may be 
appreciated, and that therefore the varying designa- 
tions assigned to Jesus in the Gospels may occasion no 
surprise. 

8 For a list of the Messianic titles in common use among the Jews 
see Schiircr’s The Jevjish People in the Time of Christy ii. 2, 158; 
Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 214 seq., 248-9; Drummond, 
The J elvish Messiah, IL, X., pp. 283-289; and cf. Charles, Book of 
Enoch, pp. 51, 112, 301. 


127 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 

This rich body of designations is rooted, in all its 
Items, not In current Messianic speculation, but In Old 
Testament prophecy; and Is a witness 
much to the Messianic thought 
of Jesus’ day as to the great variety 
of the modes of representation adopted In Old Testa- 
ment revelation to prepare the people of God for His 
future interv^entlon for their redemption. The focus- 
ing of all these lines of prediction In Jesus, and their 
satisfaction In His manifestation, is one of the phe- 
nomena which marked His appearance, and differen- 
tiates the movement inaugurated by Him from all other 
Messianic movements in Judaism — whether movements 
of thought merely or of action. He came forward and 
was recognized as the embodiment of the whole Mes- 
sjaHc preformation of the Old Testament, moderating 
the current one-sided exaggeration of some elements 
of It and emphasizing other elements of it which had 
been neglected, transfiguring elements of It which had 
been cra^y apprehended and compacting the whole 
into a unitary fulfillment unImagIned before His ap- 
pearance. What It particularly behooves us to take note 
of at the moment is the emphasis with which Jesus 
Is presented, by means of this long series of designa- 
tions, as the Messiah, and the exalted conception of 
the Messianic dignity w^hlch accompanies this emphatic 
attribution of it to Him. Nothing Is left unsaid which 
could be said In simple and straightforward narratives 
to make It clear to the reader that Jesus Is the Messiah : 
and nothing is lacking In wTat Is said to make it clear 
that this Messiah is more than a human, even a divine, 
person. 


128 


The Designations of Our Lord 

It belongs to the emphasis which is placed on His 
Messianic character that no room is left for that de- 
Jesus* velopment of Jesus’ Messianic con- 

Messianic sciousness which it has been the chief 
Claims desire of many modern students of His 
career to trace. Nor, indeed, is room left for justi- 
fiable lagging of recognition of His Messiahship on 
the part of His followers or of His contemporaries. 
He is exhibited as already conscious of His unique rela- 
tion to God as His Son, in the sole incident that is 
recorded of His early youth (Lk 2^^). He is repre- 
sented as beginning His ministry under the profound 
impression necessarily made upon Him by His solemn 
designation as the Messiah by John the Baptist (Mt 
3^^) , confirmed as this was by a voice from the opened 
heavens proclaiming Him God’s Son, His Beloved, in 
whom God was well pleased (Mt 3^^, Mk Lk 3^“), 
and by His terrible experience of testing by Satan as 
the Son of God (Mt 4^’^ Lk 4^’^), and His succoring 
by the angels (Mk i^^). Accordingly He is repre- 
sented as opening His ministry by publicly applying to 
Himself the prophecy of Isaiah 61^ with its enumera- 
tion of the works of the Messiah (Lk ^i^.isseq.^^ 
as entering at once upon the performance of those 
works, not merely accepting the ascriptions of Mes- 
sianic dignity to Him which they elicited (Lk 5® 4^^’^h 
Mk Mt etc.), but Himself appealing to them 
as the criteria of His Messiahship (Mt ii^, Lk 7^®). 
He is represented as, under the impulse of His sense of 
His mission (Mk Lk 4^^), preaching through- 
out the land in accents of authority (Mk Lk 4^^), 
asserting His power over the religious ordinances of 
the people (Mk 2^®, Mt I2^ Lk 6^), and exercising 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 129 

His authority not only over unclean spirits (e. g., Mk 
and the laws of nature (4^^), including even death 
hut over the moral world itself, in the divine 
prerogative of forgiving sins (2^^). Not only, how- 
ever, is He represented as thus openly taking the posi- 
tion of Messiah and assuming the authority and 
functions of the Messiah (cf. Mt before the 

people: He is represented as from the first speaking 
of Himself as the Messiah in the use of His favorite 
Messianic designation, as frequently as He could be 
expected to do so in the circumstances in which He 
was placed and with the purpose which governed His 
entire course of life (Mt 8“^ || Lk 9^®; Mt 9® || Mk 2^^ 
Lk 5-^; Mt 10^^; Mt ii'^ll Lk 7^^; Mt i2« || Mk 2^^ 
Lk 6^; Mt 12^^; 12^^; Lk 6^“; Mt 13^^; before the con- 
fession of Peter at Mt 16^® ||).® When these instances 
of self-expression are taken in connection with those of 
reception of the Messianic ascription from others (e. g., 
Mk 3'' 5^ Mt 4^’" 8-^ I4^^ Lk 4^1 8^" 4^’^ Mt 9^^ 
15^^), it will be seen that the early ministry of Jesus, 
as represented by the Synoptists, was marked by prac- 
tically continuous assertion or confession of His Mes- 
siahship. 

If, then, John the Baptist doubted in prison whether 
He was ‘the Coming One’ (Mt ii^), or it was only 
Divergence through a revelation from heaven that 
From Current Peter attained to confess Him with firm 
Expectations ‘ the Christ, the Son of the Living 

God’ (Mt 16^®’^^), this was not because of any lack 
of opportunity to learn of His Messiahship, but be- 

9 Cf. Dalman, Words, p. 259: “As for the Evangelists themselves, 
they take the view that Jesus called Himself the ‘ Son of Man ’ at all 
times and before all company.” 


130 The Designations of Our Lord 

cause they were foolish and slow of heart to believe 
in all that the prophets had spoken and their eyes were 
holden that they should not know Him as He walked 
with them in the way (Lk 24^®’^^). So little were they 
left in ignorance of who it was to whom they listened 
as their Teacher, and obeyed as their Master and rev- 
erenced as their Lord, that it is represented that an- 
gelic messengers descended from heaven to announce 
Him as the promised Messiah before His birth (Lk 
j 32,35 predicted messenger who should 

go before the Lord, coming to redeem His people, 
pointed Him out as the One who should come after 
Him (Mt 3^^ II), that God Himself proclaimed Him 
from heaven as His Son (Mt 3^^ ||), that Satan and his 
subject spirits recognized Him on sight as the One who 
had been appointed to destroy them (Mk 5”^ || etc.), 
and that His whole career and teaching alike were or- 
dered to convey to every seeing eye the great intelligence. 
The difficulty, according to the representation of the 
evangelists, was not that there was not evidence enough 
that here was the Messiah of God, the King come to 
His Kingdom; but that the evidence was not of the 
nature that had been expected and therefore puzzled 
men’s minds rather than convinced them. The gist 
of our Lord’s message to the Baptist (Mt ii^) was 
not that John might see in His works such things as he 
had been looking for in the Messiah, but that he might 
see in them such things as he ought to be looking for. 
“ Go and tell John that these are the kinds of things 
you see in me — the blind receive their sight, the lame 
walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the 
dead are raised up ; and the poor have the good tidings 
preached to them: and blessed is he ziho shall find 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 13 1 

none occasion of stumbling in Me! It is as much as 
to say, “ Go and tell John to revise his conception of 
the Messiah, and to look and see if it is not these 
things which, according to the Scriptures (Is 61^), 
should mark His work: go and tell John, I am indeed 
He who is to come, but I am not the manner of Mes- 
siah who is expected to come.”^® 

Accordingly the Synoptic narrative Is marked no 
more by the stress It lays on the Messlahship of Jesus 
Transfigured than by the transfigured conception of 
Conception of this Messlahship which It In every line 
Messiah insists upon. This constantly vibrating 
note Is already struck in the supernatural announce- 
ments of the birth of Jesus. It is the Son of David who 
Is to be born (Mt I“^ Lk the promised King 

(Mt 2^ Lk ; but, above all else and before all 
else, that Saviour who Is Christ the Lord (Lk 2^^), 
and whose name shall be called Jesus, because It is 
He who In fulfillment of the ancient prophecy promis- 
ing the coming of Jehovah to His people, shall save 
His people frorn their sins (Mt i^^). It is not merely 
a spiritual function which Is here announced for this 
Messiah: It I'> also a divine personality. Who is that 
Saviour who is Christ “ the Lordf^ and whose name 
shall be called Jesus because He shall save from their 
sins His people — ''His” people, let us take good note, 
Jesus’ people, although It Is clear It Is Jehovah’s peo- 
ple who are meant? No wonder that it Is Immediately 
added that In this birth there Is, therefore, fulfilled the 

Cf. the discussion by Shaller Mathews, The Messianic Hope in 
the N. T., 1905, pp. 95-6; although Professor Mathews’ treatment is 
dominated by the idea that our Lord’s followers saw in Jesus rather 
one who was after a while to do Messianic works than one who was 
already doing then>,. 


132 The Designations of Our Lord 

prophecy of the issue from a virgin of one whose name 
is to be called Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, 
“God with us’’ (Mt i^^). 

The note thus struck is sustained throughout the 
Gospel narrative. This Messiah who Jesus is, is cer- 
tainly the Son of David, the King of Israel. But the 
Kingdom He has come to found is the kingdom of 
righteousness, not merely a righteous kingdom: it is 
the Kingdom of Heaven, not a kingdom of the earth: 
the Kingdom of God, not of men. We may see its 
nature in Daniel’s splendid dream of the heaven-founded 
kingdom of the saints of the Most High (Dan . 

the method of its establishment in Isaiah’s vision of the 
Righteous Servant of Jehovah, who bears the sins of 
His people and preaches the good tidings to the meek 
(esp. Is 53 and 61) ; the person of its founder in that 
most glorious of all prophecies of the Old Covenant: 
“ Lo, your God will come; He will come and save 
you!” (Is 35^); “the voice of one that crieth. Pre- 
pare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make 
straight in the desert a highway for our God; . . . 

the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh 
shall see it together, . . . Behold your God! Be- 

hold the Lord God will come . . . He shall 
feed His flock like a shepherd. He shall gather the 
lambs in His arms, and carry them in His bosom, and 
gently lead those that give suck” (Is To 

put it in one sentence, the Messianic ideal which is 
presented in the Synoptics as fulfilled in Jesus finds 

Cf. Reinhold Ziemssen, Christus der Herr, 1867, p. 28: “They 

proclaim with one voice that the Lord (Jehovah) Himself will come, 
that He Himself will protect His flock, that He Himself will be King 
in Zion, that He Himself will be found of Israel.” 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 


133 


Its Old Testament basis not merely in the prediction of 
a Davidic King who reigns forever over the people 
of God, but, Interpreting that kingdom In the terms 
of Daniel’s dream of a heaven-founded kingdom of 
saints, interweaves with It the portraitures of the Serv- 
xant of Jehovah of Isaiah and the fundamental promise 
xthat Jehovah shall visit His people for redemption. 
The special vehicles of the exalted view of the per- 
son of the Messiah embodied In this Ideal are, so far 
as the Messianic designations are con- 
Designations cerned, first of all that of the ‘ Son of 
Man,’ then that of ‘ the Son of God,’ 
or rather. In the more pregnant simple form, of ‘ the 
Son ’ ; and outside of the Messianic titles proper, the 
high title of ‘ Lord.’ The history of these designations 
is somewhat obscure, and, although they all have their 
roots set In the Old Testament, Is Illustrated by only 
scanty usage of them In Jewish literature prior to our 
Lord’s time. ‘ The Son of Man ’ occurs only In the 
Similitudes of Enoch and In 4 Ezrad** the exact title 
‘ Son of God ’ does not seem to occur at alV® though 


12 Cf. Dalman, Words, p. 242: “From the first Christian century 
there are only two Jewish writings known which deal with Dan 7^^, 
the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch and the Second [al. Fourth] Book 
of Esdras. The two agree in regarding the one like to a Son of Man 
as an individual person. And as they combine Dan 7 with Messianic 
prophecies from the O. T. they clearly show that they regard this indi- 
vidual as the Messiah.” Cf. p. 248. 

Cf. Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 147, and esp. 
288; and Dalman, Words, 269-71: also Shailer Mathews, The Mes- 
sianic Hope in the N. T., 1905, p. 46 and note 4. Dr. Sanday on 
•Rom writes as follows: “‘Son of God,’ like ‘Son of Man,’ was a 
recognized title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch 1052 ; 4 Ezra 728,29 1282,37,62 
14®, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the Messiah as ‘ My 
Son,’ though the exact phrase ‘Son of God’ does not occur). It is 
remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely find it used by our 


134 The Designations of Our Lord 

in an interpolated fragment of the Book of Enoch 
(i05“) and in 4 Ezra the Messiah is represented as 
spoken of by God as ‘ My Son.’^^ It is noteworthy that 
in this rare Jewish usage both titles appear In connec- 
tion with a transcendental doctrine of the Messiah/® 
and It may be that it is the unwontedness of a transcen- 
dental doctrine of the Messiah In Judaism which ac- 
counts for the little use made In Jewish speculation of 
them, because these titles were felt to be implicative 
of more than human qualities. Their emergence Into 
more frequent use in the Gospels would In that case 
be connected with the emphasis laid, according to their 

Lord Himself, though in the face of Mt 27^^, Jno 10^®, cf. Mt 21^^ 
ei al., it cannot be said that He did not use it. It is more often used 
to describe the impression made upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mk 
3I1 5” II, the centurion, Mk 15^^ ||), and it is implied by the words of 
the tempter (Mt 4^-6 ||)^ and the voice from heaven (Mk 9 ’^ID- 
The crowning instance is the confession of St. Peter . . . Mt 16I®.” 

Cf. Dalman, Words, 269-70; Charles, Enoch, 301. 

Cf. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, etc., 248 : “ But here and 
there there springs up, now, in the Jewish Apocalyptics a new tran- 
scendental Messiah-conception, that fits into these transcendental sur- 
roundings. In the first line there comes here under consideration the 
Similitudes of Enoch, springing from the pre-Herodian time. The 
standing designation of this peculiar Messiah is the ‘ Son of Man ’ . . . 
Still more remarkable and unusual than, in part, the name is now the 
figure of this Son of Man. He is in no respect an earthly phenom- 
enon; he is not, like the Messiah of the stock of David, born on earth; 
he is an angel-like being, whose dwelling place is in heaven under 
the pinions of the Lord of spirits; He is preexistent . . . Emphasis 

must be laid on the Son of Man in the great judgment upon the kings 
of the earth and the evil angels; He takes His place by the side of 
God and indeed supplants Him . . . This representation of the 
Messiah, singular in the sphere of Judaism, has only one, though by no 
means so far-going a, parallel in the vision of the Son of Man of 4 
Ezra. . . . Here too the Son of Man ... is conceived as a 

preexistent (heavenly?) being. Here too he holds the great judgment, 
and, according to the original disposition of the apocalypse, seems also 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 135 

representation, upon the essential divinity of the Mes- 
siah by Jesus and His followers. 

Certainly the Messianic conception represented as 
expressed by Jesus through His constant employment 
of the title ‘ Son of Man ’ of Himself, 
‘^n^oTMan* ^ supermundane Being enter- 

ing the sphere of earthly life upon a high 
and beneficent mission, upon the accomplishment of 
which He returns to the heavenly sphere, whence He 
shall once more come back to earth, now, however, 
not in humiliation, but in His appropriate majesty, to 
gather up the fruits of Plis work and consummate all 
things. The characteristic note of ‘ the Son of Man ’ 
on earth is therefore a lowliness which is not so much 
a humility as a humiliation, a voluntary self-abnegation 
for a purpose. He came under the conditions of hu- 
man life (Mt II) on a mission of mercy (Lk 19^^) 
which involved His self-sacrifice (Mk io^^||), and there- 
fore lives a life unbefitting His essential nature (Mt 
8“®). For, when He tells the questioning scribe that 
the ‘ Son of Man ’ is worse off than the very foxes, 
who have holes, and the birds of the air, wTo have 
nests, since He has not where to lay His head (Mt 
8^^), the very point of the remark is the incongruity 

to bring In the definitive end, and not merely a preliminary closing 
. . .” So also p. 215: “The title Son of God, closely connected 

though it is with the conception of the Son of David and the 
Anointed, is comparatively very rare. It is found In the address in 
Psalm 2, which also became typical for the title ‘Messiah’ (verse 7, 
cf. Ps 89-'^). In 4 Ezra 7-® the filius Is not textually assured; in i. 
Enoch 1052 the words “ and My Son,” as perhaps also the whole clause, 
is a later interpolation. Accordingly the apposition, ‘ My Son,’ is found 
only In 4 Ez 113,32,37,52^ — jg section In which along 

with the Similitudes, the transcendent conception of the Messiah comes 
forward most vitally — and also in 4 Ezra 14^ (Dalman, 219).” 


136 The Designations of Our Lord 

of the situation. Accordingly even on earth He exer- 
cises an authority which does not belong to His condi- 
tion: though destined to be set at naught by men, to 
be evil-entreated and slain, yet He has power to regu- 
late the religious observances of the people of God 
(Mk 2^^) and even to forgive sins (2^^). And when 
His lowly mission is accomplished He ascends the 
throne of the universe (Mk 14®“, Mt 19“^) J 
due time will return in His glory and render to every 
man according to his works, seated as King on the 
universal judgment seat (Mk 8^^ Mt 25^^). The con- 
nection of the title with the dream of Daniel is 
obvious: the point of connection lying in the concep- 
tion of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus came to in- 
troduce, and which He finds particularly promised in 
Daniel apparently because it is there depicted, 

specifically in contrast with the earthly kingdoms which 
it supercedes, as a Kingdom of heaven. But there is 
much more expressed by the title than is discernible In 
the dream of Daniel, and that not least with reference 
to the person of the founder, who is conceived, in Jesus’ 
idea, as represented by the Synoptic record, not merely 
as a supernmndane, perhaps angelic, figure,^® but dis- 
tinctly as superangelic, transcending all creaturely re- 
lief. Stanton, J elvish and Christian Messiah, 286-7: “I may remark 
- that the Idea of the preexistence of Christ as an angel, is irreconcilable 
X with that of a true Incarnation. Those who have thought of Christ as 
essentially an angel have never in fact conceived, and could not con- 
ceive, His human life to be real. A whole and complete human nature 
could not be united to another finite being, whether angel or man, as 
it could be united to, and could become the perfect organ of, God. 
Wherever, then, we find a belief in the real human nature of Jesus 
Christ, there we may confidently say the idea formed of His super- 
human pregxistence and personality is not that of an angel. . . . 
Hellwag fails altogether to see this when he attributes such a concep- 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 137 

latlons,^'^ and finding His appropriate place only by the 
side of God Himself, whose functions He performs^* 
and whose throne He occupies as Kingd® 

The conception attached in these Gospels to the des- 
ignation ‘ Son of God ’ is in no respect less exalted. 

The title does occasionally occur, to be 
*^on^oi%od* circumstances in which this ex- 

alted significance seems more or less in 
danger of being missed. For example, it is employed 
by the Jewish officers at the trial of Christ as in some 
sense a synonym of the general Messianic title ‘ Christ ’ 
(Mk 14^ Mt 26^^ Lk 22^ cf. Mt 27^"’^^); it is 
also employed, according to Matthew’s account, by 
Peter in his great confession alongside 'of the term 
‘ Christ’ (16^®) ; and on one occasion Jesus’ disciples, 
having witnessed a notable miracle, cried out as they 
did Him reverence, “ Of a truth Thou are the [or, a] 
Son of God” (Mt 14^^). Such passages, no doubt, 
illustrate the use of the term as a Messianic title. But 
it seems clear enough that they illustrate its use as a 
Messianic title of inherently higher connotation than, 
say, the simple term ‘ the Christ ' as a general synonym 
of which it is employed. The very point of the Jews’ 
approaching Jesus with this particular Messianic title 
appears to have been — as the form of the narrative 
in Luke may suggest^ -to obtain a confession which 
would enable them from their point of view to charge 

Hellwag is the writer who has most insisted on the influence of a Jew- 
ish doctrine of the Messiah’s preexistence upon Christian belief.” The 
speculative element in this remark is perhaps too dogmatically put: 
but there is food for thought in it. 

The angels are subject to Him and do His bidding: Mt 13^^ 16^'^ 
24®^; and also Mt 4^^ i3^^» Mk Lk 9^®. 

Especially forgiveness of sins (Mk 2®) and judgment of the 
world (e.g. Mt 25^1 — two inalienable divine functions. 


138 The Designations of Our Lord 

Him with blasphemy. That is to say, the implications 
of this Messianic title in their minds seem to have been 
such that its use by a mere man, or by one seemingly 
a mere man, would involve him in claims for himself 
which were tantamount to blasphemy. It seems equally 
clear that Peter in acknowledging Jesus to be the Mes- 
siah (Mt 16^®) intended by adjoining to the simple, 
“ Thou art the Christ ” the defining phrase “ the Son 
of the Living God ” to attach an exalted conception of 
the Messiahship to Him. And it is fairly obvious that 
the frightened disciples in the boat (Mt 14^^), — though 
certainly they understood not and their heart was hard- 
ened (Mk 6'^^), — yet expressed out of their distracted 
minds at least the sense of a supernatural presence when 
they cried out, “ Truly Thou art ” — possibly “ a,” not 
“ the ” — “ Son of God.” Their exclamation thus may 
in its own degree be paralleled at least with that of 
the centurion at the cross (Mk 15^^ Mt 27^^), “ Truly 
this man was a Son of God ” — which surely is the 
natural expression, from his own point of view, of his 
awe in the presence of the supernatural. 

This series of exceptional instances of the employ- 
ment of the term ‘ Son of God ’ will scarcely, there- 
fore, avail to lessen the general impression we get from 
the current use of the title, that it designates the Mes- 
siah from a point of view which differentiates Him as 
‘ the Son of God ’ from the children of men, and throws 
< into emphasis a distinct implication of the supernatural- 
^ ness of His person. It seems to be on this account that 
it is characteristically employed by voices from the 
unseen universe. It is by this term, for instance, that 
^ Satan addresses Jesus in the temptation, seeking to 
" Induce Him by this exploitation of His supernatural 


139 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 

character to perform supernatural deeds (Mt 4^’®, Lk 
4^’^). It is by this term (Lk 4^^) that the demons 
greet Him when they recognize in Him the judge 
and destroyer of all that is evil (Mk 3^^ 5^, Mt 8^^ 
Lk 8“®; 4^^). It is by this term that the angel of the 
annunciation is represented as describing the nature 
of her miraculous child to Mary: “ He shall be great,” 
he announced, “ and shall be called the Son of the Most 
High God.” And in doing this, it must be noted, the 
angel connects the title no more with His appointment 
to a supernatural service than with the supematural- 
ness of His origin: because Mary’s conception should 
be supernatural, therefore, that holy thing which was 
being begotten should bear the name of the ‘ Son of 
God ’ (Lk jg ‘ ]\4y gon ’ above 

all that God Himself bore witness to Him on the two 
occasions when He spoke from heaven to give Him 
His testimony (Mk 9”^, Mt 3^^ 17^ Lk 3^^ 9^^) — 
adding to it moreover epithets which emphasized the. 
uniqueness of the Sonship thus solemnly announced. It 
would seem quite clear, therefore, that the title ‘ Son 
of God ’ stands in the pages of the Synoptics as the 
supernatural Messianic designation by way of eminence, 
xand represents the Messiah in contradistinction from 
children of men as of a supernatural origin and nature. 

It is, however, from our Lord’s own application of 
the term ‘ the Son ’ to Himself that we derive our 
plainest insight into the loftiness of its implications. 
Already in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 
(Mk 12^ Mt 21^^ Lk 20^^, cf. Mt 22^), He sets 
Himself as God’s Son and Heir over against all His 
servants, of whatever quality; which would seem to 
withdraw Him out of the category of creatures alto- 


140 The Designations of Our Lord 

gather. And this tremendous inference is fully 
supported by the remarkable utterance in which, in 
declaring His ignorance of the time of His future 
coming, He places Himself outside of the category 
even of angels, that is of creatures of the highest rank, 
and assimilates Himself as Son to the Father (Mk 13^^, 
Mt 24^®) . It is carried out of the region of inference 
into that of assertion in the tw^o remarkable passages 
in which He gives didactic expression to His relation 
as Son to the Father (Mt i Lk Mt 28^^). 
In these. He tells us He is co-sharer in the one Name 
with the Father, and co-exists with the Father in a 
complete, perfect and unbroken interpenetration of 
mutual knowledge and being. The essential deity of 
the Son could not receive more absolute expression. 

The difficulty of forming a precise estimate of the 
implications of the application of the term ‘ Lord ’ 
to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels arises 
from the confluence of two diverse 
streams of significance in that term. On 
the one hand Jesus may be and is called ‘ Lord ’ 
by the application to Him of a title expressive of 
authority and sovereignty commonly in use among men : 
above all others who have a right to rule He has a 
right to rule. On the other hand, Jesus may be and 
is called ‘ Lord ’ by the application to Him of a current 
Biblical title expressive of the divine majesty: much 
that was said of the ‘ Lord ’ in the Old Testament 
^ Scriptures was carried over to Him and with it the 
term itself.^® When, then, we meet with an instance in 

Cf. Reinhold Ziemssen, Christus der Herr, 1867, p. 22: “But 
this is meant: that just as xupco^^ ‘Lord,’ occurs in the O. T. (i) as 
the equivalent of Jehovah; (2) as the rendering of Adhonai ; and (3) 
as a transference of the human honorific title to God, — so also in the 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 14 1 

which Jesus Is called ‘ Lord ’ we are puzzled to de- 
termine whether there Is merely attributed to Him 
supreme authority and jurisdiction, or there Is given to 
Him the Name that Is above every name. 

That the designation ‘ the Lord ’ had attached Itself 
to Jesus during His lifetime so that He was thus fa- 
miliarly spoken of among His followers Is perfectly 
clear from the Gospel narrative. It Is Indeed already 
Implied In the Instruction given His disciples by Jesus 
to bring Him the ass’s colt on which He might make 
His entry Into Jerusalem. He could not have Instructed 
them to say to possible objectors, “ The Lord hath need 
of him” (Mk ii^ Mt 2i^ Lk 19^^), unless He had 
been accustomed to be spoken of as ‘ the Lord.’ That 
He was accustomed to thinking of Himself as 
their ‘ Lord ’ follows also from such a passage 
as Mt 24^^ (cf. Mk 13^^): “Watch, therefore, for 
ye know not on what day your Lord cometh”; and 
indeed from the didactic use of the term of Himself 

N. T. the Saviour is called xupio<$^ ^Lord,’ (i) in the sense of Adho- 
nai-Jehovah; (2) by a heightening of the human sense or an adapta- 
tion from the relations of human sovereignty: and that the name ‘Lord’ 
belongs to the Saviour according to the N. T. essentially and fundamen- 
tally in the sense of Adhonai or Jehovah, not as the transference or 
heightening of the human relation of sovereignty.” The use of xopto<^ 
in the N. T. of our Lord, he says again, “ has in the first instance noth- 
ing to do with glory, do^a, and just as truly stands in the N. T. in 
no essential connection with ruling” (p. lo). This is not 

to contend that 6 xupto<s in N. T. when applied to Christ always 
means Jehovah. In almost all the passages in the Gospels where xupto<s 
appears as a formula of address it is a human honorific. In certain 
others, as Lk 1931,34^ Lk 6^®, Mt 7^1, something may be said for either 
interpretation (p. 21). But there are passages where It must be taken 
as the divine xupco?^ viz., Lk 2^. *0 xupio^ Zeimssen holds, is the 
name of Jesus as the Son of God, just as Jesus is His name as the Son of 
man, and Christ is His office-name (p. 30) ; and refers back to the 
prophecies of Jehovah’s advent, such as Ezek 34I1 (p. 20). 


142 The Designations of Our Lord 

in encouraging or warning His followers (Mt 10^"^), 
and its free employment in parabolic pictures, where 
He represents Himself as the ‘ Lord ’ over against His 
servants (Lk 12^®’^^). In what sense the term is used 
in such allusions is not, however, immediately obvious. 
The opposition of it to “ slaves ” in such passages as 
Mt 10^^, Lk leads to its instinctive interpretation 

in the sense of ownership and sovereignty, and does not 
appear to call for direct divine implications save as the 
absoluteness of the sovereignty which is suggested may 
surpass that enjoyed by men. Perhaps something to 
the same effect may be said of Luke where Elisabeth, 
under the influence of the Holy Spirit, expresses her 
wondering joy that “ the mother of her Lord ’’ should 
come to her. Clearly she intends to express by the 
designation the height of at least Messianic glory: but 
it does not seem obvious that her thought went beyond 
the delegated glory of the divine representative. In 
a passage like Luke 5®, however, there seems to be 
an ascription to Jesus of a majesty which is distinctly 
recognized as supernatural: not only is the contrast 
of ‘ Lord ’ with ‘ Master’ here express (cf. v. 5), but 
the phrase “ Depart from me; for I am a sinful man ” 
(v. 8) is the natural utterance of that sense of unworthi- 
ness which overwhelms men in the presence of the 
divine, and which is signalized in Scripture as the 
mark of recognition of the divine presence. The 
‘ Lord, Lord ’ of Mt also obviously involves a 

recognition of Jesus as the Lord of life, and in Mt 
2^37,44 ‘ Lord ’ is the appropriate address to the King 
on the judgment throne of the whole earth. In these 
instances the sense of the mere supernatural gives way 
to the apprehension of that absolute sovereignty over 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 143 

the destinies of men which can belong to deity alone; 
it is this ‘ Lord ’ in whose name all the works of life 
are done, by whose determination all the issues of life 
are fixed. 

If in such instances we appear to be employing the 
word in its highest connotation of sovereignty, in such 
instances as the discussion of David’s words in the 
noth Psalm we seem to rise into a region of actual 
divine ascription. Here, with obvious reference to 
Himself, our Lord argues that when David in the Spirit 
represents the Lord as saying to his Lord, “ Sit thou 
on My right hand,” he ascribes a dignity to the Mes- 
siah very much greater than could belong to Him sim- 
ply as David’s son (Mk That seems as much 

as to say that sovereignty of the royal order, however 
absolute, is too low a category under which to subsume 
this Lordship : and therefore appears to point to a 
connotation of ‘ Lord ’ beyond illustration from hu- 
man analogies. The question inevitably obtrudes itself 
whether our Lord does not intend to suggest that David 
applies the divine name itself to the Messiah. That 
the evangelists may very readily have so understood 
Him seems evident from their own application to 
Jesus of the term ‘ Lord ’ in Isaiah 40^, — representing 
‘^^'the incommunicable name of Jehovah as it does, — in 
their account of the mission of the Baptist, whom they 
consentiently speak of as the forerunner of Jesus, ful- 
filling the prophecy of the coming of the voice of one 
crying, “ Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the 
Lord, make His paths straight” (Mk Mt 3^ Lk 

Cf. Bengal on Mt 22^^ ; signum subjectionis, dominatio, cujiis sub- 
ditus est ipse David, coelestem et Regis majestatem et Regni indolent 
ostendit. 


144 Designations of Our Lord 

3^). And there remains the remarkable passage in 
the angelic annunciation to the shepherds of the birth 
in the city of David of that “ Saviour ” who is “ Christ 
the Lord” (Lk 2^^). It seems impossible to suppose 
that the term ‘ the Lord ’ here adds nothing to the 
term ‘the Christ’ — else why is it added? But what 
can the term ‘ Lord ’ add as a climax to ‘ Christ ’ ? In 
‘ Christ ’ itself, the Anointed King, there is already 
expressed the height of sovereignty and authority as 
the delegate of Jehovah. The appearance is very 
strong that the adjunction of ‘ Lord ’ is intended to 
convey the intelligence that the ‘ Christ ’ now born is 
a divine Christ. 

This appearance is greatly strengthened by the con- 
sideration that the appeal to prophecy in calling the 
Messiah ‘ the Saviour ’ is an appeal to the great series 
of predictions of the advent of Jehovah for the re- 
demption of His people (cf. Mt i“^) : and also by 
the general context in which this annunciation is placed, 
which contains a sustained attempt to make the super- 
naturalism of this birth impressive, and includes the 
declaration that the child here designated “ the Saviour 
who is Christ the Lord ” is in His person the ‘ Son of 
the Most High God ’ (Lk and is marked out as such 
by a supernatural birth Nor should we permit 

to fall out of our sight the circumstance that this 
passage occurs in a context in which the term ‘ Lord ’ 
appears unusually frequently, and always, with this ex- 
ception and that of of Jehovah. It would be very 
difficult for the simple reader to read of the angel of 

22 Cf. R. Ziemssen, Christus der Herr, 1867, p. 19: “In any event 
its significance is gained by the angelic annunciation only if we take 
it in this sense — Christ-Adhonai, that is, Christ- Jehovah.” 


The Jesus of the Synoptists 145 

‘ the Lord ’ and of the glory of ‘ the Lord ’ in Lk 2®, 
and of ‘ the Lord ’ making known in verse 15, and, in 
the middle of these statements, of ‘ Christ the Lord ’ 
in verse ii, and not institute some connection between 
it and its ever-repeated fellows: especially when he 
would soon read in verse 26, of “ the Christ of the 
Lord.” That at least a superhuman majesty is hei:e 
ascribed to Jesus seems scarcely disputable: and there 
appears a strong likelihood that this supernaturalness 
is meant to rise to the divine. In any event it is clear 
that the term ‘ Lord ’ is sometimes applied to Jesus 
in the Synoptics in a height of connotation which im- 
ports His deity.^® 

It is not necessary to add further evidence, derived 
from less frequently employed designations of our 
Synoptical ^ord, that a true deity is ascribed to 
Christ Divine person in the Synoptic Gospels. On 
the basis of the considerations already 
presented it is abundantly clear that the Synoptists con- 
ceived Jesus, whom they identify with the Messiah, as 
a divine person; and represent Him as exercising di- 
vine prerogatives and asserting for Himself a divine 
personality and participation in the divine Name. 

; 23 The nature of the xupi 6 fq<s ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptics is 
very interestingly expounded by Professor Erich Schaeder in two lec- 
tures on “The Christology of the Creeds and the Modern Theology,” 
printed in Schlatter and Liitgert’s Beitrdge zur Fbrderung christlicher 
Theologie, ix. 5. (1905). That this Lord of spirits and of the world 
is not conceived as of the world, he makes very obvious. “ It is non- 
sense to suggest that the world itself can produce its Lord. The world 
can produce only what is like it, not one who stands above it” (p. 201). 


THE JESUS OF THE SYNOPTISTS THE 
PRIMITIVE JESUS 


That wc may estimate the significance of the testi- 
mony to the Divine Christ which we have seen to be 
Significance borne by the Synoptists, we must bear 
of Synoptical in mind that it cannot be taken as merely 
Testimony individual opinion of three writers. 

It must be recognized as reflecting the consentient con- 
viction of the community which these three writers rep- 
resent and for which they wrote. And this is equiva- 
lent to saying that we have here the conception of Jesus 
which prevailed in the primitive age of the Christian 
propaganda.^ 

This might not be so obvious if we could follow 
certain extremists who, largely in order to escape this 

_ . . very conclusion, have wished — formerly 

Date of the . , i i 

Synoptics much greater numbers than more re- 
cently — to assign the composition of the 
Synoptic Gospels to a period somewhat late in the 
second century. It will be allowed by most reasonable 
men to-day that these Gospels- were all written before 
A. D. 8o, and belong at latest to the seventh and eighth 
decades of the first century. Our own conviction is 
very clear that they were all written before A. D. 70, 
and therefore belong to the seventh decade at the 


^ Cf. O. Schmiedel, Die Hauptprohleine der Lehen-Jesu Forscliun^ 
1906, p. 35: “The early Church in whose circles the narratives of 
the life of Jesus originated, . . , was at one in its acknowledg- 

ment of Christ, its exalted Lord.” 


147 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 

latest. In the seventh decade of the first century, there- 
fore, it was of faith in the Christian community that 
Jesus Christ was a divine person. And this evidence 
is retrospective. What was with such firmness uni- 
versally believed of the nature of the founder of the 
Christian religion in the seventh decade of the first 
century, had not first in that decade become the faith 
of the Church. But only a short generation, as we 
conventionally count generations — something like five 
and thirty years — intervened between the death of 
Jesus and the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. 
It Is impossible to suppose that the conception of Jesus 
had radically altered In this brief Interval; that a primi- 
tive humanitarlanism for example had in the course of 
thirty or forty years been transformed into a universal 
conviction of the deity of Jesus, such as Is expressed 
with simplicity and unstudied emphasis In our Gospels. 
The witness of the Synoptic Gospels Is accordingly a 
witness to the aboriginal faith of Christians. 

Nor is the force of this conclusion weakened by at- 
tempting to get behind our Gospels and appealing to 
Earlier ^^e yet earlier documents out of which 
Documentary they may be .thought to have been 
Basis framed. Grant that our Gospels belong 
to the second generation of documents; and that behind 
them He still earlier documents upon which they de- 
pend. These earlier documents cannot be presumed 
to have presented a portrait of Jesus radically different 
from that which all three of their representatives have 
derived from them. We have simply pushed back ten, 
fifteen, or twenty years our literary testimony to the 
deity of Jesus: and how can we suppose that the de- 
terminative expression of the Church’s faith In A. D. 


148 The Designations of Our Lord 

50 or A. D. 40 differed radically from the Church’s 
faith in A. D. 30 — the year in which Jesus died? The 
assurance that our Gospels rest on earlier documentary 
sources becomes thus an additional assurance that the 
conception of the person of Jesus which they present 
in concert is the conception which held the mind and 
heart of the Church from the very beginning. 

How fully justified this conclusion is may be illus- 
trated by examining the conception of Jesus imbedded 
The Sources in the hypothetical sources which the 
of the several schools of criticism reconstruct 

Synoptics £qj. gy^optics. In each and all of 

them is found the same portrait of the supernatural 
Christ. Probably the theory of the origin of the Syn- 
optics most in vogue just now is still the so-called “ two- 
source ” theory, in some one or other of its forms. 
According to this theory, our three Synoptics in their 
main substance are compounded out of two important 
primitive documents, which may be conveniently called 
‘ the original Mark ’ and ‘ the Matthean sayings.’ 
The former of these is supposed to be substantially 
and, in the view of many critics, very closely indeed, rep- 
resented by our present Mark; while from the latter 
a good portion of the material in Matthew and Luke 
not also contained in Mark is thought to be derived, 

' — certainly what is common to these two Gospels apart 
from Mark, and doubtless also something not repro- 
duced in both of them. According to the present most 
fashionable form of this theory, then, we are reading 
K substantially a primitive evangelical document when 
> we read our present Mark. Some suppose the primi- 
tive Mark to have been a longer document than our 
present Mark, some suppose it to have been a shorter 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 149 

document, some suppose it to have differed from It 
not more than one textual recension may differ from 
another, — say a “ Western ” MS. of Luke from a 
“ Neutral ” one. But few would care to contend that 
the general portrait of Jesus drawn in it differed 
markedly from that which lies on the pages of our 
present Mark. The Jesus brought before us In our 
present Mark, however, is, as we have seen, distinctly 
and distinctively a supernatural person: and it must 
have been this same distinctly and distinctively super- 
natural Jesus, therefore, which was set forth in the 
primitive Mark. 

Indeed, we can demonstrate this without difficulty. 
For it is easy to show that it is impossible to construct 
Christology a primitive Mark which will not contain 
of the this portrait of a supernatural Jesus. 

Primitive Mark what is probably the most irra- 

tional hypothesis of the nature of the primitive Mark 
which has ever been suggested, — that which would con- 
fine its contents strictly to the matter common to all 
three Synoptics, as if each Gospel must be supposed 
to have transferred into its substance every word which 
stood in this common source of them all. Even in the 
broken sentences of the absurd “ telegraphese ” Gos- 
pel,* which on this hypothesis is supposed to represent 
the primitive evangelical document, the portrait of the 
divine Christ is ineffaceably imbedded. In it, as in 
the larger Mark, the stress of the presentation is laid 

2 Cf. E. A. Abbott and W. G. Rushbrooke, The Common Tradition 
of the Synoptic Gospels, etc., 1884, p. xi: “Is it not possible that the 
condensed narrative which we can pick out of the three Synoptic rec- 
ords represents the ‘elliptical style’ of the earliest Gospel notes or 
Memoirs, which needed to be ‘expanded’ before they could be used 
for the purpose of teaching ... ? ” 


150 The Designations of Our Lord 

on the Messiahship of Jesus, which is copiously and 
variously witnessed. Peter in his great confession de- 
clares Him the ‘Christ’ (8^^) and the declaration is 
accepted by Jesus Himself; as also, when adjured by 
the High Priest at His trial to say whether He is the 
‘ Christ,’ He acknowledges that He is, in the highest 
sense (14®^’®-). The implied claim to kingly estate 
He also expressly makes (15-’^“) ; as also the involved 
claim of being the promised ‘ Son of David ’ ( 10^^’^^), 
— although His conception of the Messiahship was so 
little exhausted by this claim that He takes pains to 
point out that the Messiah was acknowledged by David 
himself to be his ‘ Lord,’ using the term obviously in 
a high sense. (12^^). That He was familiarly spoken 
of by His disciples as ‘ Lord ’ is also made evident 
( 1 1^) ; and He Himself asserts that His Lordship is 
high enough to give Him authority over the religious 
ordinances of Israel (2-®). The tradition applies, in- 
deed, the term ‘ Lord ’ to Him in citations from the 
Old Testament, where it stands for Jehovah Himself 
(i^). The evil spirits greet Him by the high title of 
‘ Son o f God ’ (5^), and the same title is suggested 
to Him as a synonym of the Messiah in His accusa- 
tion (14^^), and in neither case is it repelled. He 
Himself indeed in a parable represents Himself as in a 
unique sense the ‘ Son ’ and ‘ Heir ’ of God, differen- 
tiated as such from all “ servants ” whatsoever (12®’'^) ; 
and receives the testimony of heaven itself that He is 
God’s ‘Son’ and His ‘beloved Son’ ( P' 9^). He 
speaks of Himself, however, with more predilection as 
the ‘Son of Man’; and under this self-designation 
He asserts for Himself power over the religious ordi- 
nances of Israel (2“®), and even the divine prerogative 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 1 5 1 

of forgiving sins (2^^), although He anticipates for 
Himself only a career of suffering, predicting that He 
will be betrayed (14^^) into the hands of men (9^^) 
who shall mock and scourge and kill Him (10^^). 
Afterwards, however. He shall rise again (10^^) and 
ascend to the right hand of power (14^“), whence He 
shall return in clouds with great power and glory 
(13-®), the glory of the Father and the angels (8^®). 
It is clear that the designation ‘ Son of Man ’ is derived 
from Daniel (13"^ 14^-) and the portrait 

presented under it is that of a being of more than 
human powers and attributes. In complete harmony 
with this portrait He is represented as calling Himself 
also ‘the Bridegroom’ (2^^’^^), charged as that term 
was with Old Testament associations with Jehovah 
(cf. ‘ Lord ’ of i^) ; and in immediate connection with 
this high designation, too. He speaks of His death, 
thus instituting a close parallel between this designa- 
tion and that of the ‘ Son of Man.’ In both alike, 
indeed. He evidently is regarded as presenting Himself 
as a personage of superhuman, or rather of divine 
quality, who has come to earth (12^^) only on a mission 
and who suffers and dies here only to fulfill that 
mission.® 

3 There may be compared with this sketch the minimizing account 
which von Soden {History of Early Christian Literature, 1906, p. 144), 
gives of the christology of the primitive “ Mark,” which according to 
him was of somewhat wider compass than what we have allowed it. 
“ Somewhat more frequently,” he says, “ than in the Logia of St. Mat- 
thew, stress is laid upon the Messianic character of Jesus — for instance, 
in the narrative of the Baptism seq.)^ in the cry of the possessed 

(i 24 ), in the simile of the bridegroom (2^®), in the question concerning 
the Davidic sonship of the Messiah perhaps in the claim to 

forgive sin (2^®) ; again, on the part of the disciples in their confes- 
sion ( 823 ), and in the petition of the sons of the Zebedee ; 


152 The Designations of Our Lord 

No doubt there are some striking phrases occurring 
in our present Mark which are lacking from this series 
Other Possible of broken extracts from it. But the 
Elements in the same figure is here outlined. And most 
Primitive Mark these Striking phrases are re- 

stored if we will attend also to passages common to 
Mark and one of the other evangelists, of which it 
would be hard to deny that they may therefore have 
had a place in the primitive document underlying all 
three. Thus, for example, in the fragments peculiar 
to Matthew and Mark, while Jesus is not addressed 
as ‘ Lord ' except by the Syro-Phoenician woman ( Mk 
7“®, Mt 15^^), and is not spoken of at all by the general 
Messianic designation, ‘ the Christ,’ He yet does call 
Himself both the ‘ Son of Man,’ and undefinedly, ‘ the 
Son.’ As ‘ Son of Man,’ he asserts. He “ came ” to 
execute a great mission, not to be ministered unto but 
to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many 
(Mk Mt 20“®), and therefore has a prospect 

of suffering before Him (Mk 9^^ Mt 17^^, Mk I4^h 

finally on the part of our Lord, the disciples, and the people, in the 
story of the entry into Jerusalem (ii^ seq.). However, the expression 
‘Son of God’ never occurs except in the voice at the Baptism 
and in the utterance of 13®^, though elsewhere in the Gospel it forms 
the proper formula for profession of belief (i^ 3^^ 5'^ 9'^ 14®^ 15^®) i 
and the word ‘ Christ ’ only occurs in the Confession of the Twelve 
(8-^), and in the theological dispute of though it likewise is 

often employed elsewhere by the evangelist 1321 1461 15^2). 

The term ‘ Son of Man ’ is found in 210.28 jo33,45^ as also in 1421. 
if indeed these parts of the story of the Passion belong to the group of 
which we are speaking; while in the sections due to the evangelist it 
occurs only in 99.12,31 after the pattern of 8®i and One cannot 

help admiring the skill with which the attention of the reader is kept 
from dwelling on the fact that all the significant, high designations of 
Jesus are left in the fragment of the Gospel which is allowed to be 
primitive; but the fact cannot even so be totally obscured. 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 153 

Mt 26^®), but dies only to rise again (Mk 9®, Mt 17^). 
As ‘Son’ He represents Himself as of superangelic 
dignity, and therefore above all creatures, standing next 
to God Himself (Mk 13^^, Mt 24^®). In the pas- 
sages peculiar to Mark and Luke, we find Him testi- 
fied to as the Messiah by the demons, who, although 
they know His earthly origin (‘Jesus of Nazareth’), 
profess to know Him also to be the ‘ Holy One of 
God,’ (Mk I 2 ^ Lk 4^^) and the ‘Son of the Most' 
High God ’ (Mk 5"^, Lk 8^^)T Not only does He 
not repel these ascriptions, but He speaks of Himself 
as the ‘ Son of Man,’ teaching that He is to suffer 
many things and be killed, but after three days to rise 
again (Mk Lk 9^^). A primitive gospel contain- 
ing all this falls short in nothing of the testimony borne 
by our present Mark to our Lord’s higher nature. 

It is not neccessary for our purpose to expend effort 
in endeavoring to ascertain the compass most com- 
Christology of monly attributed to the second hypo- 
the ‘Primitive thetical document supposed to underlie 
Sayings* Synoptics, the so-called, and let us 

add, very much miscalled, “ Logia.”* We may as well 
at once direct our eyes to its minimum contents, — the 

4 The reconstruction of these so-called “Logia” by Harnack in his 
SprUche und Reden Jesu, etc., 1907, PP- 88-102, provides one of the 
most convenient and accessible forms in which they may be studied, 
although Harnack (like Wellhausen) deprives them of the Passion 
story, and even eliminates the conception of the Passion from them 
(see to the contrary, Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmis- 
sion, 1907). Their christology is minimizingly described by von 
Soden, History of Early Christian Literature, 1906, pp. 136, 137. 
While asserting that the claim advanced for Jesus in this document is 
“ scarcely more than any master might make on his disciples,” von 
Soden is yet constrained to allow that “ a higher self-consciousness may 
be clearly traced in the background.” “ The word ‘ Christ,’ ” he con- 


154 The Designations of Our Lord 

passages peculiar to Matthew and Luke, — even in the 
meager compass of which we shall find evidence enough 
that this document, whatever Its extent, presented Jesus 
as a Divine Being. That He was the Messiah He Is 
represented as Himself Indicating by pointing to His 
works (Mt ii^, Lk 7^^), which, He Intimates, evi- 
dently on the basis of Isaiah 6i\ accredit Him as the 
‘ One who was to Come.’ It Is apparently as Messiah 
that He is addressed as ‘Lord’ (Mt Lk 7®), and 
He is represented as adverting to this customary mode 
of addressing Him in order to declare that It Is not 
merely verbal recognition of His authority but actual 
obedience to His v/ords alone which will constitute 
a claim upon His mercy (Mt 7“h Lk 6^®) — where. 
It is to be noted. He presents Himself as ‘ Lord ’ of 
the destinies of men, by their relations to whom men 
stand or fall. He is accordingly appropriately spoken 
V to by Satan as ‘ Son of God ’ (Mt 4^’^ Lk 4^’^) ; and 
currently calls Himself by the great Danielle title of 
‘ Son of Man.’ He explains that this ‘ Son of Man ’ 
has come In the fashion of men, “ eating and drink- 
ing ” (Mt Lk 7^^), and living a hard life (Mt 
8“^, Lk 9^^) — ending in betrayal and death (Mt 26^®, 
Lk 22^'^) ; but after death is to rise again (Mt 12^^, 
Lk But even while on earth He asserts for 

Himself an unbroken communion with God, or rather 
a continuous Intercommunion of Himself as ‘ Son ’ with 

tinues, “ which occurs twelve times elsewhere in St. Luke, together 
with the expression ‘ Son of God,’ which elsewhere occurs nine times, 
does not occur in our compilation of sayings. Messianic tone and col- 
oring, however, declare themselves in the sayings (lyssseq., 26 iq 22)^ 
and in the parable and, besides, the expression ‘Son of 

Man.’ ” How inadequate this is as a representation of the teaching of 
the material common to Matthew and Luke concerning our Lord’s self- 


155 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 

the ‘ Father’ (Mt ii“h Lk I0“-) ; knowing the Father 
as perfectly as He Is known by the Father, and there- 
fore able to make known the Father as His sole ade- 
quate revelation to men. In this great passage we have 
(what must be considered the culminating assertion on 
■ our Lord’s part of His essential deity. 

It Is clear, then, that the documents which, even In 
the view of the most unreasonable criticism, are sup- 
Resort to posed to underlie the structure of our 

* Historical present Synoptics are freighted with the 
Criticism’ same teaching which these Gospels them- 
selves embody as to the person of our Lord. Literary 
criticism cannot penetrate to any stratum of belief more 
primitive than this. We may sink our trial shafts 
down through the soil of the Gospel tradition at any 
point we please; it is only conformable strata that we 
pierce. So far as the tradition goes, it_.glves xonr. 
s^tlent testimony to an aboriginal faith In the deity 
of the founder of the religion of Christianity. In 
these circumstances It Is not strange that another mode 
of analysis Is attempted. Literary criticism Is aban- 
doned for historical criticism: and we are Invited to 
distinguish In our Gospels not between later and older 
documentary strata, but between narrative and repor- 
torial elements. We do not wish to know. It Is said, what 
Matthew, Mark or Luke thought, or what was thought 
by those represented by them or by any predecessor 
of theirs — the Christian community to wit, even the 
^primitive Christian community. What we wish to Imow 
vis what Jesus Himself thought. We appeal from the 
^representation of Jesus given by His followers to the 
self-testimony of Jesus. Let us have Jesus’ own con- 
ception of Himself. 


156 


The Designations of Our Lord 


It Is not necessary to spend much time upon this 
demand In Its simplest form, that, namely, which would 
The Reportorial merely separate out from the Synoptic 
Element in the Gospels as they stand the words attrlb- 
Gospels Jesus, and seek to ascertain from 

them Jesus’ witness to the nature of His person 
and the quality of His dignity. It must have been ob- 
served as we ran over the designations applied to our 
Lord In the Gospels and sought to estimate their sig- 
nificance, that the most remarkable of them are drawn 
from the words of Jesus. The fact Is too patent and 
striking to have failed to attract attention: the higher 
teaching of the Gospels as to our Lord’s person Is 
embodied very especially In His own words. It Is on 
His lips, for example, that the term ‘ Lord ’ appears 
when employed In its loftiest connections. It Is He 
alone who applies to Himself the significant title of ‘ Son 
of Man,’ the vehicle of the most constant claim for 
Him of a superhuman nature. It Is He alone who, 
speaking out of His own consciousness, proclaims Him- 
self superior to those highest of God’s creatures, the 
! angels (Mk 13^^ Mt 24^^) : represents Himself as 
living In continuous and perfect Intercommunion with 
the Father, knowing Him even as He Is known by 
Him and acting as the sole adequate mediator alike 
of the knowledge of God and of the grace of God to 
men (Mt ii^^, Lk 10^^): and In His great closing 
utterance places Himself, along with the Father and 
Holy Spirit and equally with them, even In the awful 
precincts of the Divine Name Itself (Mt 28^^). To 
separate between the narrative and reportorial elements 
of the Gospels, therefore, only brings home to us with 
peculiar poignancy the testimony they bear to the deity 


157 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 

of our Lord, resting this testimony, as they do, on the 
firm basis of our Lord’s own self-testimony — a self- 
testimony In which He at times lays bare to us the In- 
nermost depths of His divine self-consciousness. 

There can be no question of the deity of our Lord, 
therefore. If we can trust the report which the evangel- 
ists give of His words. It Is at this point, however. 
Trustworthiness that the assault on the validity of their 
of the Evangel- representation Is made. We are not 
ical Report asked to distinguish between what the 
evangelists say In their own person and what they say 
In the person of Jesus. We are asked to distinguish 
(fttween what Is really theirs In their account of the 
life and teaching of Jesus and what Is really Jesus’ 
own transcribed Into their narratives. It Is suggested 
^that they may have, or rather that they must have, and 
actually have, attributed much to Jesus which He never 
said; that they have read back their own Ideas Into 
His teaching, and unconsciously — or more or less con- 
sciously — placed on His lips what was In point of fact 
the dogmatic elaborations of the later Christian com- 
munity. And It is demanded that we, therefore, sub- 
ject the whole body of the evangelic representation of 
Jesus’ teaching to the most searchingly critical scrutiny 
with a view to sifting out from It what may really be 
depended upon as Jesus’ own. Thus only, we are told, 
will It be possible to find firm footing. Faith Is the 
foe of fact : and In the enthusiasm of their devotion to 
Jesus It was Inevitable that His followers should clothe 
Him in their thought of Him with attributes which 
He did not possess and never dreamed of claiming: 
and It was equally Inevitable that they should Imagine 
that He must have claimed them and have ended by 


158 


The Designations of Our Lord 


representing Him as claiming them. We shall never 
know the truth about Jesus, therefore, we are told, 
until we penetrate behind the Jesus of the evangelists 
to the Jesus that really was. 

The situation might not have been so bad, we are 
told, if the evangelists had been merely transmitters 
of a tradition, like, say, the rabbinical 


Fact schools. But there is an essential dif- 
ference between the two cases, a differ- 
ence which casts us with respect to the evangelic tradi- 
tion into graxe doubt. This difference is due to the 
unfortunate fact that the evangelists themselves be- 
lieved in Jesus and loved Him. “ In our case,” there- 
fore, we are told,® “ we have not merely pupils trans- 
mitting the teaching of their master, but a believing 
community speaking of one they honor as the exalted 
Lord. Even the oldest Gospel is written from the 
standpoint of faith; already for Mark Jesus is not 
only the Messiah of the Jewish people, but the miracu- 
lous eternal Son of God whose glory shone in the 
world.”® “ And it has been rightly emphasized that in 
this regard our three first Gospels are distinguished 
Jrom the fourth only in degree. Must there not, then, 
have taken place here a complete repainting from the 
standpoint of faith? For there Is a certain propriety 
in saying that faith Is the enemy of history. Where 
we believe and honor, we no longer see objectively.” 
Accordingly we are told that the deepest longing of 
men’s hearts to-day Is to rediscover the real Jesus. 


® By Bousset, Was fwissen nvir <von Jesus? 1904, pp. 54 seq. 

® Cf. p. 57: “ For the belief of the community, which is shared already 
by the oldest evangelist, Jesus is the miraculous Son of God, on whom 
men believe, whom men put wholly by God’s side.” And cf. Wrede, 
Das Messiasseheimnis in den Evans^elien, 1901, passim. 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 159 

“ There Is a great desire to know Him at first hand,” 
It Is said,’' “not merely through the loving vision of 
His earliest interpreters, but as He looked and spoke 
and worked and thought.” Which Is as much as to say 
that the vision the evangelists give us of Jesus Is 
not conformable to the reality, but has been distorted 
by their love. If we wish the bald truth about Him 
and His claims we must go behind them. 

This point of view, it will be observed. Is definite 
enough. The evangelists are not to be trusted In the 
Primary report they give of the teaching of 
Canon of Jesus about Himself. But embarrassing 
Criticism questions remain. Above all, these em- 
barrassing questions : Why should we not trust the 

evangelists’ report of Jesus’ teaching as to His own 
nature? And, distrusting them, how are we to get be- 
hind their report? That the evangelists believed In 
Jesus and loved Him does not seem In itself an abso*- 
lutely compelling reason why we should distrust their 
report of His teaching concerning His own nature. 
Suppose we assume for the moment that Jesus did 
assert for Himself superhuman dignity. How does It 
throw doubt upon that fact that those who report It 
to us were led — possibly by overwhelming evidence of 
Its truth — to believe that In so asserting He spoke truly ? 
Are we to lay It down as the primary canon of criticism 
that no sympathetic report of a master’s teaching Is 
trustworthy; that only Inimical reporters are credible 
reporters? 

Absurd as it seems, this Is the actual canon of critical 
reconstruction upon which our would-be guides. In re- 

Jesus the Prophet, by Charles S. MacFarland, Ph.D., 1905; intro- 
duction by Prof. Frank K. Sanders. 


i6o The Designations of Our Lord 

covering from the obscuring hands of the evangelists 
the real Jesus, would have us proceed. It has found 
somewhat notorious enunciation in Professor Schmie- 
del’s article “ Gospels ” in the Encyclopedia Bihlica.^ 
But it is so far from being peculiar to Professor Schmie- 
del that it is the common foundation stone upon which 
the whole school of criticism with which we are now 
concerned builds its attempt to penetrate behind the 
evangelical narratives and to recover from these an 
earlier and therefore presumably truer picture of Jesus 
and His claims.® Under its guidance we are set to 
searching diligently through the evangelical narratives 
(as if for hid treasures) for sentences or fragments 
of sentences in the reported words of Jesus, which 
appear, or may be made to appear, out of harmony 
with the high claims He is consentiently and constantly 
reported by all the evangelists to have made for Him- 
self : and on these few broken passages, torn from their 

® P. 1872: “When a profane historian finds before him a historical 
document which testifies to the worship of a hero unknown to other 
sources, he attaches first and foremost importance to those features 
which cannot be deduced merely from the fact of this worship, and he 
does so on the simple and sufficient ground that they would not be 
found in this source unless the author had met with them as the fixed 
data of tradition. The same fundamental principle may safely be ap- 
plied in the case of the Gospels, for they also are all of them written 
by worshipers of Jesus.” 

® Cf. e.g. Shailer Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N. T., 1905, 
p. 58: “At this point we may safely use this canon: that saying is more 
probably genuine which treats of Messianic matters in any other way 
than that which characterized apostolic belief.” “ The trustworthiness 
of sayings which do not contradict, but agree with, apostolic belief 
must be decided on . . . more general critical grounds.” It is the 

same canon which Prof. N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, 1905, 
lays down in the words (p. 235); “These sayings possess evidential 
value just in proportion as they contradict the notions current in the 
circles through which they were transmitted.” 


The Sy nop tic J es us Pri mi live 1 6 1 

context and shredded in their own contents, is erected, 
as on its foundation stone, a totally new portrait of 
Jesus, expressing a totally new self-consciousness, — 
which stands related to the Jesus of the evangelists 
and the self-consciousness which is ascribed to Him in 
their account, of course, as its precise contradictory, — 
seeing that it is precisely on the principle of contradic- 
tion that it has been concocted. 

Surely we do not need to pause to point out that 
the procedure we are here invited to adopt is a pre- 
scription for historical investigation which must always 
issue in reversing the portraiture of the historical char- 
acters to the records of whose lives it is applied. The 
result of its universal application would be, so to speak, 
the writing of all history backwards and the adorn- 
ment of its annals with a series of portraits which would 
have this only to recommend them, that they represent 
every historical character as the exact contrast to what 
each was thought to be by all who knew and esteemed 
him. The absurdity and wrong of invoking such a 
canon in the case of our Synoptic Gospels are pecu- 
liarly flagrant, inasmuch as these Gospels, as we have 
seen, and as these very critics are frank to allow, are 
themselves of very early date and rest on a documentary 
basis, quite at one with them in the portrait they draw 
of Jesus, which is naturally earlier than themselves; 
and therefore reflect the universal conviction of the 
first generation of Christians. It is really impossible 
to doubt that they bring to us the aboriginal testimony 
of the primitive Church — a Church which included 
in its membership a considerable number of actual eye- 
witnesses of Jesus and ear-witnesses of His teaching, 
— as to His claims and personality. 


i 62 


The Designations of Our Lord 

The absolute unanimity of that Church in its view 
of Jesus is very strikingly illustrated by the difficulty of 
Futility of discovering passages imbedded in our 
This Canon Gospels which Can be used as a founda- 
tion for the opposing portraiture of 
Jesus which the critics would fain draw. Professor 
Schmiedel can by the utmost sharpness of inquisition 
find only five, which by applying more exegetical pres- 
sure he can increase only to nine. The groundlessness 
of this assault on the trustworthiness of the portrait 
of Jesus presented in our Synoptics may fairly be said, 
therefore, to be matched by its resultlessness. Mate- 
rial cannot be gathered from our Gospels out of which 
a naturalistic Christ can be created. The method of 
criticism adopted being purely subjective, moreover, the 
assumed results naturally vary endlessly. We feel a 
certain sympathy, therefore, with the position assumed 
by those writers who frankly admit that, the evangel- 
ical portraiture of Jesus being distrusted, the real Jesus 
is hopelessly lost to our sight. Strive as we may, we 
are told, we cannot penetrate behind the Jesus of our 
first informants — the writers of the New Testament, 
upon whose palette had already been mingled, never- 
theless, colors derived from Jewish prophecy. Rabbinic 
teaching. Oriental gnosis and Christian philosophy. 
“ All that can be d_etermined with certainty from these 
writings,” it is declared, “ is that conception of Christ 
which was the object of faith of the early Christian 
communities and their teachers”: the real Jesus is 
hopelessly hidden under the incrustations with which 
faith has enveloped it.^° Nor does there seem to be 

So, Pfleiderer, The Early Christian Conception of Christ, E. T., 
1905. 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 163 

lacking a certain logical force In the reasoning of bolder 
souls^^ who drive the Inference one step further and ask 
what need there Is of assuming a real Jesus at all. The 
real Jesus ” whom the critics Invent certainly was 
not the author of the Christianity that exists. If the 
Christianity that actually exists In the world can get 
along without the Jesus which alone would account for 
It, why, they argue, must there be assumed behind It a 
Jesus which will not account for It; of whom this only 
may be said, — that He Is a useless figure, the assump- 
tion of whom Is so far from accounting for that great 
religious movement which we call Christianity, that It 
ri's certain that the movement did not arise In Him and 
did not derive Its fundamental convictions from Him? 
Let us, then, assume, they say, that there never was 
any such person as Jesus at all, and the picture drawn 
of Him In the evangelists Is pure myth. 

It Is Interesting — almost amusing — to observe our 
disin tegrating critics over against this more radical em- 
Can We ployment of their own methods, suddenly 
Save Any Jesus taking up the role of “ apologists 
at All? writing so In the spirit and with 

the adoption of so many of the exact arguments of the 
“ apologists,” whom they have been wont to despise, 
as to lead the reader to exclaim, “ Are these, too, among 
the prophets? ” It Is all, however. In vain. The fatal 
subjectivity which underlies their own view reasserts 
Itself In the end and leaves them without adequate de- 
fense against extremists, simply because whether one 

E.g. Albert Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem^ and Die Entstehung 
des Christentums, 1904; and William Benjamin Smith, Ne^ Testa- 
ment Criticism, Status and Drift of. Art. in the “ Encyclopaedia Ameri- 
cana,” and, more fully, Der ‘vorchristliche Jesus, etc., 1906. 

^2 E.g. Bousset, Was nuissen ^wir von Jesus f 1904. 


164 The Designations of Our Lord 

stops with .them or goes on with the others is not a 
matter of principle, but only of temperament. It is 
just as impossible that Christianity can have sprung 
from the Jesus which these critics give us, as that it 
should have sprung up without any Jesus behind it at 
all, as the radicals assert. There is just as little reason 
in a sound historical criticism to discover the Jesus of 
Bousset behind the Jesus of the evangelists, as there 
is for discovering with Kalthoff that there was no real 
Jesus at all behind the Jesus of the evangelists. The 
plain fact is that the evangelists give us the primitive 
Jesus, behind which there is none other; and the at- 
tempt to set the Jesus they give us aside in favor of 
an assumed more primitive Jesus can mean nothing but 
the confounding of all historical sequences. The real 
impulse for the whole assault upon the trustworthiness 
of the portrait of Jesus drawn in the Gospels lies not 
in the region of historical investigation but in that of 
dogmatic prejudice, — or to be more specific, of natu- 
ralistic preconception. The moving spring of the crit- 
ical reconstruction is the determination to have a “ nat- 
ural ” as over against the “ supernatural ” Jesus of the 
evangelists. There must be a more primitive Jesus 
than the evangelists’ — this is the actual movement of 
thought — because their Jesus is already a supernatural 
Jesus, — “ a miraculous Son of God, in whom men be- 
lieve, whom men elevate to a place by the side of 
God.”^^ The plain fact, however, is that this super- 
natural Jesus is the only Jesus historically witnessed to 
us; the only Jesus historically discoverable by us; the 
only Jesus historically tolerable. We can rid ourselves 
of Him only by doing violence to the Wjhole historical 
testimony and to the whole historical development as 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 165 

well. Not only is there no other Jesus witnessed in the 
documents, but no other Jesus can have formed the 
starting point of the great movement which, springing 
from Him, has conquered to itself the civilized world. 

What must absorb our attention immediately, how- 
ever, Is the difficulty that Is found even on these natu- 
ralistic presuppositions In eliminating from the portrait 
of Jesus drawn In the Gospels all supernatural traits 
and' all claims on His own part to a supernatural per- 
sonality. To be successful here, there Is required such 
a policy of thoroughgoing rejection as Kalthoff’s and 
W. B. Smith’s, who sweep away the whole figure of 
Jesus Itself as a myth, or at least as Wrede’s, who 
would have us believe that Jesus made no claim to even 
'^Messianic dignity, so that the entire picture drawn of 
His career in our Gospels Is false; or else such a policy 
of ignoramus as Pflelderer’s who declines to form 
any picture of the real Jesus at all. The majority of 
naturalistic critics recoil, however, from these extremes 
with an energy which seems to betray at least a‘ semi- 
consciousness that there may haply be found In them 
the reductio ad ahsiirdum of their whole method. Their 
position Is certainly a hard one between these extremes 
from which they recoil and the portrait of the evangel- 
ists toward which their recoil brings them back. In en- 
X deavoring to avoid conclusions recognized by them as In- 
tolerable they are compelled to give recognition to facts 
as to the claims of the real Jesus which are fatal to 
their whole elaborately argued position. 

They are forced, for example, to allow that Jesus 
did announce Himself as the Messlah.^^ And they are 

i^Bousset, Jesus, 168, argues: “We have certain knowledge that the 
belief existed from the very beginning among the Christian commu- 


i66 


The Designations of Our Lord 


forced to admit that, in developing His Messianic 
conception, He was wont to call Himself ‘ the 

Jesus Certainly Man.’ “ It makes very enter- 

Claimed to be taining reading to observe Bousset, 
Messiah and for example, grudgingly conceding the 
Son of Man nervously endeavoring 

to save himself from the consequences of the 
damaging acknowledgment. He cannot deny that 
this title “ represents a perfectly definite concep- 
tion of the Messiah,” a conception which sees in the 
IMessiah a supernatural figure who comes down from 
heaven for a mission, and who is clothed with no 
less a function than that of the Judge of the world: 
and he cannot deny that Jesus represents Himself as 


nity that Jesus was the Messiah, and, arguing backwards, we can 
assert that the rise of such a belief would be absolutely Inexplicable if 
Jesus had not declared to His disciples in His life-time that He was 
Messiah.” It is consequently “ now definitely assured, in spite of con- 
tinual discussions In which It Is still frequently disputed,” “ that Jesus 
considered Himself to be the Messiah of His people” (107). Cf. Volk- 
mar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbenjousstsein Jesu, 13, and Schwartzkopff 
there quoted. For a frhis of the literature In which it is altogether 
denied that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, see Holtzmann N. T. 
Theologie, I. 280, note. Of course it is not disputable that it was a 
“ self-evident assumption ” on the part of the Synoptists that He was 
the Messiah (Bousset, 167) : for the later community — the community 
which gave birth to the evangelical narratives — says Bousset (171), 
“ the Messiahship of Jesus was the surest, most self-evident, and most 
precious thing about Him.” Cf. Dalman, Words, 306. 

Professor N. Schmidt may be taken as the type of those extremists 
who find it more convenient just to deny that Jesus used this title of 
Himself at all: “Jesus never used this title concerning Himself either 
to claim Messiahship in any sense, or to hint that He was ‘ a mere 
man * or ‘ the true man ’ ; but in some pregnant utterances used it in 
reference to man in general, his duties, rights and privileges” {The 
Trophet of Nazareth, p. vli.). Mt 8^0 according to him means that the 
life of man is “ full of danger and uncertainty,” whereas a beast is 
“not deprived of his home and hearth by his convictions” (p. in) ! 


\The Synoptic Jesus Pri m i live 167 

‘ the Son of Man.’ But he wishes us to believe that 
Jesus did this only under great pressure, as the close 
of His life drew near and evil fate closed about Him, 
— seizing and clinging to the Danielic prophecy to com- 
fort Himself in the face of the fast-coming disaster. 
And He assures us that Jesus did not adopt the title 
even then in its full content “ including the idea of 
preexistence and His own judgeship of the world.” 

“ To Him,” he tells us, “ the idea of the Son of Man 
meant only one thing, — His return in glory.”^® “ He 
did not thereby place Himself on a level with God. 
Above all. He did not lay claim to the judgeship of ^ 
the world, although that conception was, strictly speak- 
ing, included in that of the Son of Man.” “ It is true,” 
^he adds, “ in the narrative of our Gospels, the opposite 
V seems to be the case. But it is inconceivable . . . 

that Jesus . . . should have arrogated to Himself 

the judgeship of the world in place of God. This is 
-an instance of the faith of the community working upon 
^ the tradition. ... As the tradition was handed 
down by the community, Jesus was gradually removed 
from the position of a simple witness for His followers 
before God’s tribunal to that of the actual judgeship 
of the world.’’^’^ That is to say, in brief, Bousset does 
S, not like the consequences of allowing that Jesus applied 
V'" to Himself the title of ‘ Son of Man,’ and, finding 
Himself unable nevertheless to deny that He did apply 

Jesus, p. 194. Cf. among naturalistic writers who admit that Jesus 
used the title ‘ Son of Man ’ in connection with promises of returning 
in glory: Weisse, Evang. Geschichte i. 593 seq.: Keim, Jesus of Naz., 
III. 85-87; Wittichen, Idee des Reiches Gottes, 166-172; Vernes, Idees 
Mess., 229-233, and note on 243; Schenkel, Character of Jesus, 145; 
Zeller, Strauss und Renan, 88-91. These are brought together by Stan- 
ton, p. 249, note I. 

P. 203-5. 


1 68 The Designations of Our Lord 

this title to Himself, contents himself simply with deny- 
ing the consequences, — Jesus could not have meant it. 
Those who prefer to determine historical facts by the 
testimony of credible witnesses, rather than by the wit- 
ness of Bousset’s consciousness as to what were fitting, 
will probably think otherwise.^® 

Similarly it cannot be even plausibly denied that 
Jesus spoke the remarkable words attributed to Him 
Jesus Certainly in which He acknowledges His ig- 
Claimed to be norance of the time of His promised 

Superangelic second coming. The critics are indeed 
in a great quandary as to this passage. It is not the 
kind of a passage they can assume the evangelists 
to have invented. On their fundamental canon that 
statements which are, or seem to be, in conflict with the 
evangelists’ hero-worship of Jesus, bear the inerad- 
icable stamp of genuineness, they are bound to attribute 
these words of Jesus. For was not Jesus to the evangel- 
ists the omniscient Son of God? And how could they 
put on His lips a confession of ignorance of so simple 
a matter as the time of His return? In point of fact, 
accordingly, this passage is found among the nine “ ab- 
solutely credible ” passages which Schmiedel declares 
“ the foundation pillars for a truly scientific life of 
Jesus,”^® and is pronounced by him to have been “ most 

i®Cf. Shailer Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N, T., p. 103: 
“The phrase is represented as being used by Jesus to refer to Himself 
as Judge (Mk 8^® 14®^). To argue that these passages are Christian 
comments added to the words of Jesus is certainly to base conclusions 
on no clear evidence.” Nor is it easy to be rid of Jesus’ claim to be 
judge of the world; says Dalman {Words, 314), justly: “The right 
to judge the world was assumed by Jesus when He forgave sins,” — and 
the assertion of a function of forgiveness by Jesus is pervasive. 

Encyc. Biblica, 1881; ibid., 1888, cf. 1872 and Dr. E. A. Abbott, 
1773. Shailer Mathews {Messianic Hope in the N. T.) on the other 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 169 

certainly ” spoken by Jesus. Yet in this passage Jesus j 
proclaims Himself a being superior to angels, sepa- 
rated, that Is, from the entire category of creaturely 
existences, and assimilated to the divine: “No one, 
not even the angels In heaven, nor yet the Son, but 
God only.” 

And If It must be allowed that the “ real Jesus ” 
currently called Himself ‘ the Son of Man,’ no doubt 
with full consciousness of Its Impllca- 
And God tions, and asserted for Himself super- 
angelic dignity. It would seem mere 
hypercrItIcIsm which would deny to Him the great as- 
sertion of Intercommunion with the Father made In 
Mt Lk 10“^. On the general critical canon that 
sayings reported by both Matthew and Luke “ are to 
be used with confidence as representing the thought of 
Jesus,”^® this passage must be accepted as an authorita- 
tive utterance of HIs.^^ But, In that case, the “ realj 
Jesus ” must be credited with conceiving His relation 
to the Father less as that of a servant than as that of 
a fellow : as the ‘ Son ’ He moves In the sphere of the 
divine life. And, this once allowed, what reason re- 
hand, thinks that “ it must be admitted that this verse sounds much like 
a gloss or editorial comment”; and Dalman {Words), p. 194, that 
“the ending, ‘nor the Son, but the Father only,’ should be regarded as 
an accretion.” Of course writers like Martineau {Seat of Authority in 
Religion, 590), and N. Schmidt {The Prophet of Nazareth, 147, 231) 
take fright at the language, which seems to them redolent of a later 
time; and thereby bear their unwilling witness to the implications of 
the passage. In refutation of Dalman see Sanday, Hastings’ B. D., IV. 
573, whose general remarks are quite convincing. 

20 Cf. Shailer Mathews, p. 58. This is but to say — with the whole 
body of critics — that passages found in both Matthew and Luke belong 
to what Weiss calls “ the Apostolic source,” which contains the oldest 
(and most trustworthy) record of words of Jesus. 

21 A strong defense of the genuineness of the passage is made by 


170 The Designations of Our Lord 

mains for denying to Him the culminating expression 
of His divine self-consciousness, the sublime utterance 
In which He gives the Son a share In the Divine Name 
itself (Mt 28^^) ? Of course It is denied to Him by 
the critics of the school we have been considering. But 
the denial Is In the circumstances purely arbitrary and 
creates a situation which leaves an Important historical 
sequence unaccounted for. It Is undeniable, for ex- 
ample, that the trinitarian mode of speech here illus- 
trated was current In the Church from Its earliest origin : 
It already appears In Paul’s Epistles, for example, — 
especially, as a familiar and well-understood form of 
speech. In 2 Cor 13^^, which was written not more than 
twenty-five years after our Lord’s death and antedates 
all our Gospels. This current form of speech among 
Christians of the first age finds Its complete account If 
the usage were rooted In utterances of our Lord, but 
it hangs Inexplicably In the air without some such sup- 
position. The occurrence of the passage In Mt 28^® 
In the records of our Lord’s teaching Is thus too closely 

Volkmar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbe^vusi. Jesu, pp. 32 seq. Harnack {Das 
Wesen des Christentums, p. 81) pronounces it authentic, and treats it 
as the most important and characteristic of the words of Jesus. Even 
Schmiedel does not venture to reject it: he only, by appealing to the 
“ Western ” text, attempts to reduce its meaning. The Abbe Loisy, 
however, {I’Evangile et VEglise, 45; Autour tin petit Lwre, 130), casts 
it out; but on the express ground that the declaration is too high an 
one for Jesus to have made; which is at least an admission that the 
words involve a claim to ontological Sonship. Prof. N. Schmidt, The 
Prophet of Nazareth, p. 152, considers “such an utterance out of har- 
mony with the admittedly genuine sayings of Jesus,” and even “ to 
cast an undeserved reflection upon His character.” For “how can the 
gentle Teacher ... be supposed to have imagined Himself pos- 
sessed of all knowledge and regarded all other men as ignorant of 
God?” Certainly this is an unanswerable query if Jesus is to be con- 
ceived as thinking of Himself only as a man among other men: the 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 1 7 1 

linked to a historical situation to permit its displace- 
ment on the purely subjective grounds on which alone 
its genuineness can be assailed.^^ 

It would seem to be reasonably clear, therefore, that 
the attem.pt to penetrate behind the Synoptic tradition 
The Synoptic with a view to discovering a “ real 
Jesus the Real Jesus,” differing from the Synoptic 

Jesus Jesus as the natural differs from the 
supernatural, has failed. The purely subjective grounds 
on which such an attempt mu^ proceed in order to 
reach its goal, lays it open to the exaggeration which 
would eliminate the figure of Jesus from history alto- 
gether. From this exaggeration, it can save itself only 
by imposing arbitrary limitations upon the applica- 

saying is, however, in point of fact, an express claim to be something 
very different from this. “ The occurrence of this verse in both Mat- 
thew and Luke,” says W. C. Allen, in loc., “ even if the two Evangel- 
ists borrow from a single source, proves that this saying reaches back 
to an early stage of the Gospel tradition. If, as is probable, the two 
writers drew from different sources, this tradition was wide-spread. 
If we add the fact that a similar use of the Son-the Father occurs in 
Mk 13^“, this usage as a traditional saying of Christ is as strongly 
supported as any saying in the Gospels.” Cf. Plummer on Luke’s re- 
port of the saying, quoted above (p. 119). 

22 Schmiedel, Encyc. Bib., 1876, gives a summary of the reasons relied 
on to exclude the passage. The history of its criticism is briefly sketched 
by Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, ed. i, I. 378-379, note. F. C. Cony- 
beare alone has sought to put a documentary basis under the rejection; 
see esp. his articles in Preuschen’s Zeitschrift fiir N. T. Wissenschaft, 
etc., 1901, Heft 4, pp. 175-78, and Hilbert Journal, I. I. The findings 
of Conybeare have been taken up and repeated with extraordinary 
avidity by nearly the whole critical school. Only Harnack holds back: 
“ No positive proofs can be adduced for regarding 28^® as an inter- 
polation ” {Expansion of Christianity, E. T., I. 44-45, note). E. Rig- 
genbach has sufficiently answered Conybeare — who indeed required no 
answer — (Schlatter and Cremer’s Beitrdge zur For derung christlicher 
Theologie, 1903. vii. ; also 1906, x.).; Men like Harnack, while vin- 
dicating the genuineness of the passage in Matthew, and supposing it 


172 The Designations of Our Lord 

tion of its subjective principle, which render It nuga- 
tory for the end for which It is Invoked. In any event 
no reasonable grounds can be assigned for discarding 
the portrait of Jesus drawn by the Synoptlsts, or for 
depriving Him of the great sayings by which He Is 
represented by them as testifying to His essential deity. 
It is Impossible to deny on any reasonable grounds that 
Jesus called Himself the ‘ Son of Man ’ by predilec- 
tion, and It Is purely arbitrary to suppose that in doing 
so He did not mean what the term Implies. It Is 
equally Impossible to deny that He represented Him- 
self under the denomination of ‘ Son ’ as of super- 
angelic dignity, and as standing in a relation of Inti- 
mate continuous Intercourse with God the Father. This 
prepares the way for allowing farther that He repre- 
sented Himself as sharer with the Father In the divine 
Name Itself, and makes nugatory all subjective objec- 
tion to It. The strictest scrutiny of the Synoptic record 
of Jesus’ teaching. In other words, renders an appeal 
from their representation to Jesus’ own teaching mean- 
ingless. It. Is not only the Synoptists who testify that 
Jesus Is a divine person, but the Jesus they report: 
it Is not only the Jesus as reported by them who bears 
this witness to Himself, but the only Jesus of history. 

pre-Pauline in origin (o/>. cit. p. iii), yet deny it to Jesus. For rea- 
sons why it must be vindicated to Jesus see Hort. on i P Sanday 

Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 218, 219; Hastings’ B. D., ii. 213-14, 
573> 574 i P* Chase, The Lord’s Command to Baptize, in the 
Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1905. Cf. also Bruce, The King- 
dom of God, 1889, p. 258: “With reference to the trinity of the Bap- 
tismal formula, it is to be observed that it simply sums up in brief 
compass the teaching of Jesus”; and especially Zahn on Mt 28i®-20 
(p. 711, note 7): “The text of verses 18-20 is transmitted with cer- 
tainty in all essential elements. With reference to the almost stereo- 
typed abbreviation which recurs in Eusebius (for example Demonstr. 


The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 173 

On the basis of the Synoptic record, In other words, we 
can be fully assured that Jesus not only was believed 
to have taught that He was a divine person, but actu-l 
ally did so teach.^® 

E^'ang., III. 6, 32, Tropeudivreg fiaOr^TeOffars Tzdvra rd edvrj iv tw 
Svofxari fioo^ diddffxovTe^ xrA.), in which Conybeare, Ztschr. fiir 
N. T. fViss, 1901, p. 175 seg. supposes that he has discovered the origi- 
nal text, cf. E. Riggenbach, Der Trinit. Tanfbefehl, 1903 (Schlatter- 
Cremer, Beitr. VII. i), by whom the matter is set at rest (erledigt). 
From Eus. Epist. ad Casar. (Socr. I. 8) ; c. Marc. I. i; Hist. Eccl., 
III. 5, and other passages, it may be seen that Eusebius recognized the 
received text as that which had been transmitted to him too, and as 
that which alone could be employed in dogmatic discussion.” 

23 Cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 252: “His own 
express language claimed the title [of Messiah] in a sense not one whit 
less supernatural and glorious than that in which it was afterwards 
understood.” So p. 390: “I have endeavored to show that Jesus must 
have claimed to be the Christ in a sense involving His deity.” Cf. pp. 

154 , 155 - 


THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN 
JOHN AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 


It may certainly be said that, on this showing, little 
Is left by the Synoptists to John, in the way of ascrib- 
Same Chris- essential deity to Jesus. This is 

tology in Syn- true enough. Those who are familiar 
optics and John with the recent literature of the subject 
will not need to be told that the contradiction which 
used to be instituted between the Synoptists and John 
in this matter tends of late to be abandoned. Not only 
does Dr. Sanday, for example, speak of the teaching 
of John as only “ a series of variations upon the one 
theme which has Its classical expression ” In the cul- 
Xmlnatlng chrlstological passage of the Synoptists,^ 
and remark that It Is In Matthew rather than in John 
that the “ only approach to a formulation of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity” occurs in the Gospels;^ but, as 
wc have already seen, purely naturalistic critics like 
Bousset are emphatic in asserting that between the 
Synoptists and John, In the matter of the ascription of 
deity to our Lord, there exists only a difference of 
degree, not of klnd.'^ Whatever else we must say of 

1 Criticism of N. T.: Si. Margaret's Lectures, 1902, by a company 
of scholars, p. 17. Cf. his early work, The Authorship and Historical 
Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872, p. 109, where he speaks of Mt 
ii 27 as containing “the essence of the Johannine theology,” and as 
leaving “ nothing in the Johannine christology ” which it does not 
cover. 

2 Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905, pp. 218-19. 

3 JV as ^issen njoir <von Jesus f 1904, p. 54: cf. Schmiedel, Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica, 1872. 


175 


The Designations in John 

Wilhelm Wrede’s work on the Gospel of Mark, he has 
certainly rendered it impossible hereafter to appeal from 
the christology of John to that of the Synoptists.^ 
Those who will not have a divine Christ must hence- 
forth seek their human Jesus outside the entire evan- 
gelical literature. It is not merely his own individual 
opinion, then, which Professor Shailer Mathews is 
giving when he declares that “ generally speaking, out- 
side the references to the early Messianic career of 
Jesus, the Fourth Gospel contains nothing from Jesus 
that is new ” : and that, after all, the differences be- 
tween the Synoptists and John are “ a question of de- 
gree rather than of sort of treatment.”® He might 
have omitted, indeed, the qualification with respect to 
the references to the early Messianic career of Jesus. 
We have already seen that to the Synoptists also Jesus 
was consciously the Messiah from the very inception 
of His work; or rather, in their case, let us say, from 
the very beginning of His life. After all, it is the 
Synoptists, not John, who tell us of the proclamation 
of the Messianic character of this Child before His 
birth: and it is Luke, not John, who tells us that He 
was conscious of His unique relation to God as in a 
very special sense His Father from His earliest child- 
hood. 

The Synoptists and John certainly stand on the same 
level In their estimate of the person of Jesus, and differ 
In their presentation of It only In the 
^ Method relative emphasis they throw on this or 
the other aspect of it. In the Synoptists 
it is the Messiahship of Jesus which receives the pri- 
mary emphasis, while His proper deity is Introduced 

^ Das M essias geheitnnis , etc. 

® The Messianic Hope in the N. T., p. 6i. 


176 The Designations of Our Lord 

incidentally in the course of making clear the greatness 
yof His Messianic dignity. In John, on the contrary, 
it is the deity of our Lord which takes the first place, 
and His Messiahship is treated subsidiarily as the ap- 
propriate instrumentality through which this divine 
Being works in bringing life to the dead world. The 
differences in point of view between them receive a 
fair illustration in the introductions which the evangel- 
ists have severally prefixed to their narratives. Luke 
begins his Gospel with a short paragraph designed to 
establish confidence in the trustworthiness of his ac- 
count of the life and work of the world’s Redeemer. 
Mark opens his with a few words which connect Jesus’ 
career with the subsequent expansion of the religion 
He founded. Matthew’s commences with a reference 
to the previous development of the people of God, and 
presents the apparition of Jesus as the culminating 
act of the God of Israel in establishing His Kingdom 
in the world. All these take their starting-point in 
the phenomenal, and busy themselves with exhibiting 
the superhuman majesty of this man of God’s ap- 
pointment, the Christ of God. John, on the other 
hand, takes his readers back at once into the 
noumenal; and invites them to observe how this 
divine Being came into the world to save the world, 
and how His saving work was wrought in the 
capacity of the Messiah of Israel. It is in his pro- 
logue, therefore, that John sets forth the platform of 
his Gospel, which is written with the distinct purpose 
that its readers may be led to believe that Jesus is not 
merely the ‘Christ,’ but the ‘Son of God’ (20^^); 
for, that the term ‘ Son of God ’ here has a metaphys- 


177 


The Designations in John 

ical significance Is scarcely open to question. In this 
sense John’s Gospel is the Gospel of the deity of 
Christ; although it Is clear that we can call It such In 
contrast with the Synoptlsts only relatively, not abso- 
lutely. In a sense not so fully true of them, however, 
It was written to manifest the deity of Christ. 

In his prologue, then, John tells us with clear and 
even crisp distinctness what In His essential Being he 
conceives the Jesus to be whose life and 
teaching In the world he Is to give an 
account of In his Gospel. And what he 
tells us Is, In one word, that this Jesus Is God. In tell- 
ing this he makes use of a phraseology not only not 
found In the other evangelists, but absolutely peculiar 
to himself. The person of whom he Is speaking he 
Identifies at the close of the prologue (i^^) by the 
solemn compound name of ‘ Jesus Christ,’ as Mark 
and Matthew also at the opening of their Gospels had 
made use of the ^me great name to Identify the sub- 
ject of their discourse; and, like them, John also makes 
no further use of this full name In his Gospel (cf., 
however, 17^). The particular designation he applies 
to this person In order to describe His essential nature 
Is ‘the Word’ {0X6^0^), Of this ‘Word’ he de- 
clares that He was In the beginning, that Is, that He 
js of eternal subsistence; that He was eternally “with 
God,” that Is, that He Is In some high sense distinct 
from God; and yet that He was eternally Himself 
God, that Is, that He Is In some deep sense Identical 
with God and nevertheless that In due time 

He became flesh, that Is, that He took upon Himself 
a human nature and so came under the observa- 


178 The Designations of Our Lord 

tion of men and was pointed out by John the Baptist 
as the ‘ Coming One,’ that is, the Messiah. In further 
elucidation of His essential nature. He is described as 
the ‘only begotten from the Father’ (i^^) or even 
more poignantly as ‘God only-begotten’ 

'All this phraseology is unique in the New Testa- 
ment. Nowhere else except Rev 19^^ is Jesus Christ 
called the ‘Word’ only, with the possible 

exceptions of i Jno i^, Heb 4^^). Nowhere else, ex- 
cept Jno I Jno 4®, is He called the ‘ Only Be- 

gotten.’ Yet the general sense intended to be conveyed 
is perfectly clear. John wishes to declare Jesus Christ 
God; but not God in such a sense that there is no 
other God but He. Therefore he calls Him ‘ the 
Word,’ — ‘ the Word ’ who is indeed God but also 
alongside of God, that is to say, God as Revealer: 
and he adds that He is ‘ God only begotten,’ the idea 
conveyed by which is not derivation of essence, but 
uniqueness of relation, so that what is declared is that 
beside Jesus Christ there is no other, — He is the sole 
complete representation of God on earth.® In harmony 
with these designations he calls Him also in this pro- 
logue the ‘Light’ ( 1^4, 5], 7,3,9^ — ^ designation more 
fully developed by our Lord Himself in His discourses. 
The effect of the whole is to emphasize in the strongest 
manner at the inception of the Gospel the divine nature 
of the ‘ Jesus Christ ’ who is to be the subject of its 

® Cf. Westcott on j 44 (p. 126): “The thought is centered in the 
personal Being of the Son, and not in His generation. Christ ie the 
One only Son.” Meyer on (p. 92) : “ Movoy. designates the Logos 
as the only Son besides whom the Father has none.” The same essen- 
tial sense is conveyed by the dyart-qrot; employed in the Synoptists, 
possibly of God’s witness to His Son at His baptism and transfigura- 
tion, and certainly in the parable of Mk 12®, Lk 2 q4®. 


The Designations in John 


179 


narrative: and thus to set forth the aspect in which 
His life and work are here to be depicted. 

The key-note of the Gospel having been thus set, 
however, John, so soon as the prologue is over and he 
takes up the narrative proper, leaves 
^Name^n^ohT designations behind him and 

prosecutes his narrative, like the other 
evangelists, by means of the simple designation ‘Jesus.’ 
As truly to John as to the Synoptlsts, thus, the narra- 
tive name of our Lord Is the simple ‘ Jesus,’ which 
occurs nearly 250 times. It Is varied In the narra- 
tive only by a very occasional use of ‘ the Lord ’ in 
its stead (4^ 6^^ ii^ 20“^^ No other desig- 

nation Is employed by John himself outside the pro- 
logue, except In the closing verse of the narrative proper 
(20^^) , where he declares that he has written to the end 
that It might be believed that ‘ Jesus ’ — the ‘ Jesus ’ of 
whom he had so currently spoken — Is ‘ the Christ, the 
Son of God.’ It Is possible, no doubt, to take the 
‘Jesus Christ’ of 17^ as a parenthetical Insertion from 
his hand, and to assign to him the paragraph 
In which Jesus is spoken of as ‘ the Son,’ God’s ‘ only 
begotten Son,’ ‘ the only begotten Son of God.’ But 
these exceptions, even if they be all allowed, only 
slightly break In upon the habitual usage by which John 
speaks of our Lord simply as ‘ Jesus,’ varied occasion- 
ally to ‘ the Lord.’ They would merely bear witness 
to the fact that the high reverence to the person of 
our Lord manifested In the designations of the pro- 
logue continues to condition the thought of the writer 
throughout, and occasionally manifests itself In the ap- 
pearance of similarly lofty designations In the narrative. 

As In the other evangelists, further, the simple 


i8o The Designations of Our Lord 

‘Jesus’ Is reserved for the narrative name, and is 
placed on the lips of no one of the speak- 
Jesus’ Popular appear In Its course. It Is made 

clear, however, that it was by this name 
that our Lord was known to His contemporaries, and 
He Is accordingly distinguished by those who speak of 
Him as “ the man that Is called Jesus ” (9^^), “ Jesus, 
the Son of Joseph” (6^“), “Jesus of Nazareth, 
the Son of Joseph” or the simple “Jesus 

of Nazareth ” (18®’'^ 19^^) • In the reports of remarks 
about Him the simple demonstrative pronoun Indeed 
Is sometimes made to do duty as the only designation 
needed, occasionally, possibly, with an accent of con- 

, but ordinarily merely 

^14,46, [50,58] ,^25,26,31,40,41.46 

33 tt 37,37,47\ sometImes He Is represented as 

— 47 


tempt 

designatorily (l2.30.33.34 326 429.42 ^14,46, [50.58] ,^25,26,31.40,41.46 


1 1 ' 


spoken of merely as “ this man” {dvdpconoQ^ 9I6.24 ^ 
18^^’“^), or Indeed simply as a man {dvi^p, only; 


^12 ,y46,[51] 


j-g40 ^11,16,16,24 


10 ^^] 


II 


47,50 


Formulas of 
Address 


dvdpoJTroc^y 429 

jgl4.17.29 1^5)^ 

In the narrative of John our Lord Is represented as 
customarily addressed by His followers, as He Him- 
self Informs us (13^^’^^), as ‘Teacher’ 
(^diddaxah^) and ‘Lord’ (xupcs)^ the 
correlatives of which are ‘ disciples ’ 
(pad 7 ]Tai passim) and ‘ servants,’ that Is ‘ slaves ’ {douXoe^ 
J3I6 j^i5,2oj^ actual formula ‘Teacher,’ how- 

ever, occurs very rarely (i^^ In ii^® It Is an ap- 
pellative, Implying Its use In address; cf. 3^ 13^^’^^)? 
although Its place Is In part supplied by the compara- 
tively frequent Aramaic form ‘ Rabbi ’ ( 3^ 4^^ 
625 ^2 jj8. John the Baptist, 3^®), varied on 

one occasion to ‘ Rabboni ’ (20^®). The most common 


The Designations in John i8i 

honorific form of address Is ‘ Lord ’ (411.15,19.49 ^7 

^36,38 j j 3,12,21,27,32,34,39 j ^6,9,25,36,37 j^5,8,22 

of Philip, 12^^). Of course, seeing that He was cur- 
rently addressed as ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Lord,’ He could not 
but be spoken of by these titles, used appellatively : 
‘the Teacher’ (ii^®, cf. 131^’!^ 3^) rarely, and com- 
paratively frequently ‘the Lord’ (20^’^®’^®’^^ 21'^). The 
latter usage the evangelist himself adopts In his own 
person (4^ 6^® ii^ 20^^ 21'^’^®). It Is noteworthy that 
the title ‘ the Lord ’ Is In this Gospel confined to Jesus, 
never occuring of God the Father except In a very few 
citations from the Old Testament (12^®’®®, cf. i^®). It 
Is an odd circumstance that the appellative use of 
‘ Lord ’ of Jesus occurs, however, only after His resur- 
rection. We say this Is an odd circumstance, because 
our Lord Is represented as Himself telling us that It 
was applied to Him during His life (13^®’^^), as In- 
deed it could not fall to be from the currency of the 
corresponding formula of address with respect to Him. 
This circumstance must be set down, therefore, as 
merely an accident of the record. 

From the substance of the passages In which It Is 
employed, we get very little guidance to the significance 
of ‘ the Lord ’ as thus applied to Jesus. 

*Lord* It Is only obvious that It Is used with 
reverential recognition of His author- 
ity. Only In the great passage (20®®) where Thomas’ 
doubt breaks down at the sight of his risen Master 
and he cries to Him, “ My Lord and my God,” do 
we catch an unmistakable suggestion of Its highest 
meaning. That this exclamation was addressed to 
Christ Is expressly stated: “Thomas answered and 
said to HimJ* The strong emotion with which It was 


1 8 2' The Designations of Our Lord 

spoken is obvious. It is not so clear, however, what 
precise connotation is to be ascribed to the term ‘ my 
Lord ’ in it. There may be a climax in the progress 
from ‘ my Lord ’ to ‘ my God.’ But it seems impos- 
sible to doubt that in this collocation ‘ Lord ’ can fall 
little short of ‘God’ in significance; else the conjunc- 
tion of the two would be incongruous. Possibly both 
terms should be taken as asserting deity, the former 
with the emphasis upon the subjection, and the latter 
with the emphasis on the awe, due to deity. In any 
event in combination the two terms express as strongly 
as could be expressed the deity of Jesus; and the con- 
joint ascription is expressly accepted and commended 
by Jesus. It must rank, therefore, as an item of self- 
testimony on our Lord’s part to His Godhead."^ 

The ascription to our Lord of prophetic character 
is, as in the other evangelists, cursorily noted (4^^ 
^14 ^ 40 , [ 52 ] ^ 17 ^^ jg ^jgQ Qyj. Lord’s 

the ‘Christ* acceptance of the role (4^^). But 

in John, too, it is particularly the spe- 
cifically Messianic titles which attract attention. The 
simple designation ‘ the Christ ’ is not, indeed, fre- 
quently applied directly to our Lord, although it is 
made clear that He announced Himself as ‘ the Christ,’ 
and was accepted as such by His followers, and therefore 

Cf. Westcott, in loc.: “ The words are beyond question addressed 
to Christ {saith unto Him), and cannot but be understood as a con- 
fession of belief as to His Person . . . expressed in the form of 
an impassioned address. . . . His sublime confession, won from 

doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St. John traces. 
At first (ch. ii) the evangelist declared his own faith: at the end 
he shows that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the 
disciples with Christ. . . . The words which follow show that the 

Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression 
of faith.” 


The Designations in John 183 

raised continual questionings in the minds of outsiders 
whether He were indeed ‘ the Christ.’ John the Bap- 
tist is represented as frankly confessing that he was not 
himself ‘the Christ,’ but His forerunner ^28^^ 

pointing not obscurely to Jesus as the Messiah. And 
accordingly John’s disciples following their master’s 
suggestion find in Jesus ‘ the Messiah ’ ( , which the 
evangelist interprets to us as ‘ the Christ.’ When the 
woman of Samaria confesses her knowledge that ‘ Mes- 
siah ’ (who, adds the evangelist again, is called 
‘Christ’) is to come, our Lord majestically declares 
Himself to be Him (4^^’^®). The speculation of the 
people over Hi's Messianic character finds repeated 
mention (4"*" 726,27.31.41.41,42 ^22 jq 24 Jesus Him- 

self is represented as calling out from Martha the full 
confession, in which the current Messianic titles are 
accumulated with unwonted richness: “Yea, Lord: I 
have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, 
He that cometh into the world” (ii^^). And the 
evangelist himself, with some similar repetition of 
titles, explains that the purpose he had in view in writ- 
ing his Gospel was that it might be believed that “ Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of God” (20^^), and announces 
as the full name of the subject of his narrative, at its 
inception and possibly at one point in its course where 
explicit identification seemed to him useful, ‘ Jesus 
Christ’ (i^^, cf. 17^). We must not pass over this 
list of passages without noting that on two occasions 
the Aramaic term ‘ Messiah ’ occurs ( 4^^), the only 
instances of its occurrence in the New Testament. 

Nor should we leave in noticed the somewhat diffi- 
cult question whether ‘ jesu^ Christ’ in 17^ is intended 
as a word of our Lord’s or is to be understood as a 


i86 


The Designations of Our Lord 


but throughout the whole use of the name ‘ Jesus 
Christ ’ in the Apostolic Church retains its force. In 
this passage we have only the earliest instance of the 
combination of the two names ‘ Jesus,’ as the personal, 
and ‘ Christ,’ as the official designation, into one quasi- 
proper name: and the solemn employment of it thus 
by Jesus gives us the point of departure for its Apos- 
tolic use from Pentecost on (Acts 2^® 3® 4^^ etc.) 
whenever great solemnity demanded the employment 
of this ceremonious name. This fixed Apostolic 
usage from the first days of the infant Church finds 
its best explanation in such a solemn employment 
of it by our Lord as we have here recorded for us by 
John.® 

We ought not to pass finally from this passage with- 
out fairly facing the apparent contrast which is drawn 
in it between Jesus Christ as the Sent 
of God and the God who sent Him, 
described here as “ the only true God,” 
that Is to say. Him to whom alone belongs the reality 
of the Idea of God.® From this contrast it has often 


SLuthardt on the passage; also Godet, Ebrard, and Stier {Redem 
Jesu, ed. 3, 1873, v. 397). 

9 Cf. Westcott, in loc.: “To regard the juxtaposition of Thee, the 
only true God, and Him nuhom Thou didst send, as in any way im- 
pairing the true divinity of Christ, by contrast with the Father, is 
totally to misunderstand the passage. It is really so framed as to meet 
the two cardinal errors as to religious truth which arise at all times, 
the one which finds expression in various forms of polytheism, and the 
one which treats that which is preparatory in revelation as final. On 
the one side men make for themselves objects of worship many and 
imperfect. On the other side they fail to recognize Christ when He 
comes.” Accordingly the knowledge of God which is life is repre- 
sented as twofold: “a knowledge of God in His sole, supreme Maj- 
esty, and a knowledge of the revelation which He has made in its final 
consummation in the mission of Christ.” “ The contents of the knowl- 


The Designations in John 187 

been rashly inferred that Jesus Christ is here by impli- 
cation affirmed not to be God; at least not in the 
highest and truest sense. This, however, It Is obvious, 
would throw the declarations in this Gospel of the 
relation of Christ to the Father Into the greatest con- 
fusion. He who has explained that He and the Father ^ 
are One (10^^, cf. 5^^), and that to have seen Him Is 
to have seen the Father (14^ cf. 8^^ 10^^ 14^) » and 
who commended the confession of Him by His fol- 
lower as “his Lord and his God” (20^®), can scarcely 
be supposed here so pointedly to deny Himself Inci- 
dentally to be the God He so frequently affirms Himself 
to be. It Is quite clear, indeed, that the relation of our 
Lord to the Father Is not represented by John, whether 
In his own person or In the words he reports from the 
lips of Jesus, as a perfectly simple one. Its complexity 
Is already apparent In the puzzling opening words of 
the Gospel, where the evangelist Is not content to de- 
clare Him merely to have been from eternity with God, 
or merely to have been from eternity God, but unites 
the two statements as If only by their union could the 
whole truth be enunciated. We may legitimately say 

edge,” says Meyer with his usual point, “are stated with the precision 
of a Confession — a summary of faith in opposition to the polytheistic 
r. iiovov dXy]6. deov (cf. 5^^, Deut 6% 1 Cor 8^, i Thess i^), and the 
Jewish the latter of which rejected Jesus as Messiah, although 

in Him there was given, notwithstanding, the very highest revelation 
of the only true God.” Our Lord, in other words, is not contrasting 
God and Jesus Christ ontologically, but declaring that to have eternal 
life we must know not only the only true God — for there is but one 
true God; but also the only Mediator between God and man, Jesus 
Christ — who, however, may Himself very well be, and in the teaching 
of our Lord is. Himself the true God. How He can be the true God 
and yet the sent of God raises the deeper questions of the Trinity and 
the Covenant and the Two Natures which are alluded to in the text. 


1 88 The Designations of Our Lord 

that this double way of speaking of Christ confuses 
us; and that we cannot fully understand it. We are 
not entitled to say that it is the index of confusion in 
the mind of the evangelist — or in the mind of the 
greater Speaker whose words the evangelist reports, 
— unless it is perfectly clear that there is no conception 
of the relation to the Father of Him whom the evan- 
gelist calls by predilection the ‘ Son of God,’ even the 
‘ Only begotten Son ’ or indeed ‘ God only begotten,’ 
on the supposition of which as lying in his mind the 
double mode of speaking of Him which we find con- 
fusing may be reduced to a real harmony. 'And it is 
undeniable that on the supposition of that conception 
which has come in the Church to be called the doctrine 
of the Trinity, — especially as supplemented by those 
other two conceptions known as the doctrines of the 
Two Natures of Christ and of the Eternal Covenant 
of Redemption, — as forming the background of the 
evangelist’s varied modes of speaking of Christ, and 
of our Lord’s own varied mode of speaking of Himself 
as reported by John, all appearance of disharmony be- 
tween these declarations disappears. To say this, how- 
ever, is to say that these great doctrines are taught by 
John and by our Lord as reported by Him: for surely 
there is no more effective way of teaching doctrines 
(^than always to speak on their presupposition, and in 
a manner which is confusing and apparently self-con- 
tradictory except they be presupposed. Whatever we 
may ourselves find of mystery in these doctrines, it is 
only fair to recognize that they express part of the 
fundamental basis of the religious thought of the 
Gospel of John and of the great Teacher whose words 
that Gospel so richly reports to us.^° 


The Designations In John 189 

It is only another way of calling Jesus the ‘ Christ ’ 
to call Him the ‘ King of Israel.’ This Nathanael does 
when Jesus manifested to him His super- 
‘King* human knowledge of his heart, ex- 
claiming: “ Rabbi, Thou art the Son of 
God, Thou art the King of Israel” (i^®) — where the 
order of the titles used is perhaps due to the primary 
Impression being that of the possession of supernatural 
powers, from which the Messianic office Is inferred. 
It is as ‘ King,’ too, that Jesus was acclaimed as He 
made His triumphal entrance Into Jerusalem : “ Ho- 
sanna: Blessed is He that cometh In the name of the 
Lord, even the King of Israel” (i2^^ cf. 6^^) — in 
which acclamation the evangelist sees the fulfillment of 
the prophecy of Zech (f of the coming of the King 
of Zion riding on the ass (12^^). At His trial, again, 
Pilate demanded of Him whether He was the ‘ King 
of the Jews,’ using the natural heathen phraseology 
(18^^), and received a reply which, while accepting the 
ascription, was directed to undeceive Pilate with respect 
to the character of His Kingship : It is not of this world 
(18^^). In that understanding of It (18^'^) Jesus has 
no hesitation in claiming the title (18^^). The subse- 
quent ascription of this title to Him was mockery and 
part of His humiliation (18^® j ^3, [121,14, is, 15.19, 21 ^ ^ 
the same time part of the testimony that He lived and 
died as the Messianic King. 

We should not pass finally away from the passages 
in which Jesus Is called ‘ Christ’ and ‘ King’ without 
noting somewhat more particularly the 
accumulation of Messianic designations 
In such passages as 20^S where the 
evangelist says he has written in order to create faith 


190 The Designations of Our Lord 

in Jesus as “ the Christ, the Son of God,” and 
where Nathanael declares Him “ the Son of God, the 
King of Israel,” and especially at 1 where Martha 
declares her faith in Him as “ the Christ, the Son of 
God, Him that cometh into the world.” The use of 
the term ‘ Son of God ’ in these passages as a general 
synonym of ‘ Christ,’ but yet not necessarily a synonym 
of no higher suggestion, we reserve for later discussion. 
The designation ‘ He that cometh,’ more fully defined 
here by the addition of “ Into the world,” we have al- 
ready met with in Matthew (ii^) and Luke (7^^’^®). 
A clause In Jno 6^^ “ This Is of a truth the prophet 
that cometh Into the world,” may suggest that the epi- 
thet was associated in the popular mind with the Mes- 
sianic Interpretation of Deuteronomy and we 

have seen that our Lord associated It with the great 
passage In Isa In Itself, however. It appears 

to conceive the Messiah fundamentally simply as the 
promised one (cf. 4“^), and to emphasize with refer- 
ence to Him chiefly that He Is to come Into the world 
upon a mission. As such It Is supported even more 
copiously in John than In the other evangelists by a 
pervasive self-testimony of Jesus laying stress on His 
‘ coming ’ or His ‘ having been sent,’ which keeps His 
work sharply before us as the performance of a task 
which had been committed to Him and constitutes 
John’s Gospel above all the rest the Gospel of the 
Mission. ^ In the repeated assertions made by our Lord 
that He “ came ” Into the world, obviously with Im- 
plications of voluntariness of action (cf. 

Jesus’ T [9]. 11, [15], [27], [30] ^[19] .[25,25] -43 ^14 „[27],[31] 

Mission ^ 3 4 5 0 7 

939 jqIo 15— i8^‘), some are 

explicit as to the point whence He came, which is de- 


The Designations in John 19 1 

fined as heaven (3^^’^^), or the Person from whom He 
came, who is named as God ('j^sseq. gi4-i6,42 j^2s . 
while others declare plainly the object of His coming, 
which is not to judge but to save the world (12^®’^^). 
The correlation of the coming from the Father and 
being sent by the Father is express in passages like 
17^, and the sending is most copiously testified to, some- 
times in the use of the simple verb TzifiTro) (4^^ ^23,24,30,37 

^38,39,44 ^16,18,28,33 gl6,18,26,29 ^4 j 14^4 i g21 j ^5 

20“^) and sometimes rather in the use of the more specific 
dTroarsUco, which emphasizes the specialness of the 
mission, and is most commonly cast in the aorist tense 
with a reference to the actual fact of the mission 
538 529,57 g42 jq 36 j j 42 j ,^3,8,18,21,23,25 ^ ^ thoUgh SOme- 

times in the perfect tense with a reference to the abid- 
ing effect of it (5^® 20“^) The effect of this whole 
body of passages is to throw over the whole of our 
Lord’s self-testimony in this Gospel the most intense 
sense of His engagement upon a definite mission, for 
the performance of which He, sent by the Father in 
A His love, has come forth from God, or, more locally 
expressed, from heaven, into the world. They supply 
a most compelling mass of evidence, therefore, taken 
in the large, to His preexistence, and to His super- 
human dignity to which His earthly career stands re- 
! lated as a humiliation to be accounted for only by its 
A being also a mission of love (12^®’^^). 

The fact of this mission is also, no doubt, implicated 
in the designation ‘ the Holy One of God ’ (6®^) , which 
is elicited on one occasion as a confession from His 
followers; that is to say, no doubt, the One whom the 
Father has set apart for a given work and consecrated 
44 See the long and careful note of Westcott, John, p. 298. 


192 The Designations of Our Lord 

to its performance ( 6 ‘^ 10^®). It would also be the im- 
plication of the designation ‘ the Chosen One of God,’ 
if that were the correct reading in where the Bap- 
tist bears his witness really, however, to His divine 
Sonship. Another designation given to Him exclu- 
sively by the Baptist throws, however, a most illumi- 
nating light on the nature of His mission. “ Behold,” 
John is reported as crying, as he saw Jesus coming 
towards him after His baptism, “ Be- 
of God^ Lamb of God which taketh 

away the sin of the world ” : and again 
on the next day, as he saw Him walking by, “ Behold 
vthe Lamb of God” 12 'p^^t this was in inten- 

tion and effect a Messianic title is made clear from the 
sequel. Disciples of John, following Jesus on this sug- 
gestion, report to their friends that they have “ found 
the Messiah (which is being interpreted, Christ)” 
( i^^). The source of the phrase is, of course, the fifty- 
third chapter of Isaiah, through which, however, a 
further reference is made to the whole sacrificial system, 
culminating in the Passover. By it the mission of 
Jesus is described as including an expiatory sacrifice of 
Himself for the salvation of the world: it, therefore, 
only gives point to and explains the modus of what is 
more generally declared by our Lord Himself in such 

12 Jesus is called diiiv 6 <$ ‘Lamb,’ Jno i 29 , 36 ^ Acts 8^2, i p jia only 
in the N. T. The reference is to the suffering Messiah of Is 53. In 
Rev. dpvcov is used of Christ some 29 times: and though the term has 
changed, the ‘ Lamb ’ is the same — the Lamb that had been slain and 
in whose blood is salvation. The dpviov is always thus the slain 
lamb. Neither dp.v 6 <s nor dpviov occurs in N. T. of anyone else 
but Christ — except that the plural of dpvtov occurs in Jno 21^^ of 
Christ’s followers. In Lk lo^ dpy^v is used. On the use of the dimin- 
utive dp\)io\) of Jesus in Scripture, see A. B. Grosart, Expository 
Times, m. 57. 


The Designations in John 193 

a passage as 12^^: “I came ... to save the 
world.” The Messianic character of this saving work 
is thrown up in a clear light by the confession of the 
Samaritans who, having been invited to come and see 
whether Jesus were not the ‘ Christ’ (4^^), when they 
heard Jesus concluded for themselves that He was “ in- 
deed the Saviour of the world” (4^“). 

Quite a series of designations, mostly figurative in 
character, expressive of the same general conception, are 
applied by our Lord to Himself. Thus 

DesfgnatioL Himself the ‘ Light of the 

world ’ ( 9^ 1 cf. 319.20,21 j j9,io^ ^ 

which is explained as the “light of life” (8^^), even 
as the evangelist himself had with the same reference 
to “life” called Him ‘the Light of Men’ ( 7,8,9^ ^ 
^The ultimate source of this designation is no doubt to be 
V found in such passages in the Old Testament as Is 9^’^ 
which is quoted and applied to Jesus by both Matthew 
(4^®) and Luke (2^^). Similarly He calls Himself 
the Door ’ by entering through which alone can sal- 
vation be had (10^’^); the ‘Bread of God’ or ‘of 
Life,’ by eating which alone can life be obtained (6^^; 
y ^ 35 , 41,49 y4i^ . < Good Shepherd ’ who gives His life 
for the sheep cf. ; and without figure 

definitely ‘ the Resurrection and the Life,’ believing 
in whom the dead shall live and the living never die 
Perhaps to the same general circle of ideas 
belongs the title ‘Paraclete’ (14^®) or ‘Advocate,’^® 
which seems to imply that our Lord conceives Himself 
under this designation as coming to the help of the 

Bousset, Die Religion des Judeniums, p. 215, connects the Paraclete 
with “ Menachem ” employed in the later Judaism as a Messianic title. 
That would imply that we should take ‘Paraclete’ in the sense of 
‘ Comforter.’ 


194 The Designations of Our Lord 

needy. And we should probably think of the designa- 
tion ‘Bridegroom’ ( 3 ^^) in the same light: but in 
this Gospel our Lord’s application to Himself of this 
designation with a reference to His death, familiar to 
us from the Synoptics, is not recorded: there is only 
an employment of it of our Lord by the Baptist with 
no reference to the days to come when the ‘ Bride- 
groom ’ should be taken away. 

In this Gospel, however, as in the Synoptists, the 
title ‘ Son of Man ’ comes forward as one of our Lord’s 
favorite self-designations; and it is 
‘Son of Man’ charged here, too, with the implication 
■ ^’^"-^of a mission, involving suffering and 
death but issuing in triumph. If we seek the guidance 
here, as we did in the case of the Synoptist use of the 
title, of the substance of the passages in which it occurs, 
we shall learn that the ‘ Son of Man ’ is no earthly 
being. He came down from heaven whither He shall 
ultimately return (6®“). His sojourn on earth is due 
to a task which He has undertaken, and to which He 
is “sealed” (6“'^). This task is to give eternal life 
to men (6“'^) ; and He accomplishes this by giving 
them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, whence 
they obtain life in themselves (6^^, cf. 6“‘). Of course 
this is symbolical language for dying for men. Accord- 
ingly our Lord declares that it is necessary that the 
‘ Son of Man ’ be “ lifted up,” that whosoever believes 
in Him may have eternal life ( 3 ^^), and He announces 
it as His precise mission, received of the Father, to be 
thus “lifted up” (8“® 12 ^^). Nevertheless, it is only 
that He may enter His glory that He dies ( 12 ^^ 13 ^^) > 
and it is given to Him to exercise judgment also ( 5 ^^)* 
Here there is open proclamation of His preexistence, 


The Designations in John 195 

of His humiliation for an end, and of His passage 
through this humiliation to His primitive glory. 

The culminating Messianic designation In John, 
however, Is ‘ the Son of God,’ which comes fully to Its 
— rights in this Gospel. This designation 
‘ Son of God ’ occurs not only, as in the other evangel- 
ists, In the more technical form of ‘ the 
Son of God’ 5^^ 9^^ 10^® 19'^ 20^^), and 

the simple absolute ‘ the Son ’ 35.36 , 36 ^19,19,20,21,22, 

23 , 23,26 ^40 g 36 j^i3 ^ form pecullar to 

John, ‘the only begotten Son,’ or simply ‘the 

only begotten’ ( cf. ‘God only begotten’). 
That the title ‘ Son of God ’ is a Messianic title Is clear 
from such passages as 20^\ in which It is used 

side by side with ‘ the Christ,’ ‘ the King of Israel,’ ‘ the 
Coming One,’ as their synonym, although not neces- 
sarily as a synonym of no higher connotation. There 
is no reason to doubt that here, too, as In the other 
evangelists, ‘ Son of God ’ carries with it the implica- 
tion of supernatural origin and thus designates the 
Messiah from a point of view which recognized that 
He was more than man. What Is noteworthy Is that 

John ‘ the Son of God ’ becomes very distinctly a 
self-designation of Jesus’ own (5“^ 9"^ 10^® ii^) : and 

Dr. Sanday, Hastings’ D. B., iv., 571 b., writes: “We should not 
form an adequate conception of the title ‘ Son of God ’ if we should 
confine ourselves to the use of that title alone. It is true that it occurs 
in some central passages [of the N. T.], and true that in these passages 
the phrase is invested with great depth of meaning. But we should 
not adequately appreciate this depth, and still less should we under- 
stand the mass and volume of N. T. teaching on this head, if we did 
not directly connect with the explicit references to the ‘Son of God’ 
that other long series of references to God as preeminently ‘ the 
Father’ and to Christ as preeminently ‘the Son.’ These two lines of 
usage are really convergent.” 


196 The Designations of Our Lord 

it is noteworthy that in connection with this designation 
He claims for Himself not only miraculous powers 
(9S5 but the divine prerogative of judgment (5^^ 
cf. ; and that He was understood, In employing it 
of Himself, to “ make Himself equal with God,” and 
therefore to blaspheme ( . 

It Is, however. In the use of the simple ‘ the Son ’ 
^^ 17 , 36, 36 ^ 19,22 ^40 ^ often set In direct correlation 

with ‘the Father’ (3^^ ^19,20.21.23,23.26 
‘Son’ 14^^ 17^)) that the deepest suggestion 
of the filial relation In which our Lord 
felt Himself to stand to the Father comes out. And 
these passages must be considered In conjunction with 
the very numerous passages In which He who never 
speaks of God as “ our Father,” putting Himself In 
the same category with others who would then share 
with Him the filial relation,^® speaks of God either as 
‘ the Father,’ or appropriatingly as ‘ My Father.’ 
There are over eighty passages of the former klnd,^® 
and nearly thirty of the latter.^"^ The uniqueness of 
the relation Indicated Is brought out by the connection 
of the simple ‘ the Son ’ with the emphatically unique 
‘only begotten Son of God’ (3^®’^^). Although, of 
course, the passage In which this Is most pointedly done 
may be the evangelist’s and not our Lord’s, the phrase 
‘ Only begotten Son ’ or even the term ‘ Only begot- 

15 But in 2oi'^ He speaks to Mary Magdalene of “ My Father and 
your Father, My God and your God.” 

16 ^35 ^21,23,23 ^19,20,21,22,23,23,26,36,36,36,37,45 527,37,44,45,46,48,57,57,65 

gl6, 18, 27, 28, 38, 38 iol5, 15, 17, 29, 30,32, 36, 38,38 ij41 J226, 27,28, 49,50 j^6 

j^9,10,10, 11, 12, 13,16,24,26, 28,31, 31 159,10,16,26,26 j 53,10,15,17,23,25,26,27,27,28 

l528,32 171,6,11,21,24,25 igll 2 o11>21. 

17 216 517,18,43 532,40 g[19],19,19,49,54 jolS.26,29,37 

551,8,16,23,24 20l^. 


^2,7,20,21,23,28 


The Designations in John 197 

ten ’ applied to Christ, occurs nowhere else, except in 
John’s own words i Jno 4^ cf. Heb and 

that affords a reason for assigning the paragraph 
to him. Such a passage as 5^^ however, makes per- 
fectly clear the high connotation which was attached to 
the constant claim of Jesus to be in a peculiar sense 
Cjod’s ‘ Son,’ entitled to speak of Him in an appro- 
priating way as His ‘ Father.’ The Jews sought to 
kill Him, remarks the evangelist, because of this mode 
of speech: “He called God His own Father {naripa 
idcov ), making Himself equal (Jaov) with God.”- And 
indeed He leaves no prerogative to the Father which 
He does not claim as ‘ Son ’ to share. There has been 
given Him authority over all flesh (17^), and the des- 
tinies of men are determined by Him (3^^ 6^^) ; He 
quickens whom He will (5^^) and executes judgment 
on whom He will (5^^). Whatever the Father does 
He knows, and indeed all that the Father does He 
does (5^^). He even has received of the Father to 
have life in Himself (5^®). Though He declares in- 
deed that the Father is greater than He (14“^), this 
must be consistent with an essential oneness with the 
Father, because He explicitly asserts that He and the 
Father are one (10^®), that He is in the Father and 
the Father in Him (10^®), and that to have seen Him 
was to have seen the Father (14^). It may be that 
some mysterious subordination of God the Son to God 
the Father is suggested in the declaration that the 
Father is greater than He (14^®), and many certainly 
have so interpreted it, constructing their doctrine of 
God upon that view. But it seems more likely that our 
Lord is speaking on this occasion of His earthly state 
in which He is not only acting as the Delegate of the 


198 J The Designations of Our Lord 

Father and hence as His subordinate — the “sent” of 
the Father; but also in His dual nature as the God-man, 
is of Himself in His humanity, of a lower grade of 
being than God, without derogation to His equality 
with the Father in His higher, truly divine nature. If 
this be what He means, there is no contradiction be- 
tween the strong affirmations of His not merely equality 
(5^^) wdth God, but His oneness with Him ( 10^^), His 
interpenetration with Him (10^^) as sharer in all His 
knowledge and deeds (14^), and His equally strong 
affirmation of His inferiority to Him (14^^), illus- 
trated as it is by numerous assertions of dependence on 
Him and of an attitude of obedience to Him. 

Thus, so clear and pervasive is the assertion of deity 
through the medium of His designation of Himself as 
‘ Son ’ and the use of this term of Him 
Sonshfp evangelist,^® that the chief point 

of interest in the term rises above this 
assertion and concerns a deeper matter. Does the Son- 
ship asserted belong to our Lord in His earthly mani- 
festation merely; or does it set forth a relation existing 
between Him as a preexistent person and God conceived 
even in eternity as His Father? In other words, is the 
term ‘ Son ’ a term of economical or of ontological 
relation? The question is not an easy one to determine. 
But, on the whole, it seems that it should be answered 
in the latter sense. The force of a passage like 3^® 
(cf. 3®^ 5^^) — “ God so loved the world that He gave 
His only begotten Son ” — seems to turn on the intimacy 

Cf. Sanday, Hastings’ B. D., IV. 576 b.: “We may say with con- 
fidence that a sonship such as is described in the Fourth Gospel would 
carry with it this conclusion. How could any inferior being either 
enter so perfectly into the mind of the Father, or reflect it so perfectly 
to man? Of what created beins could it be said. ‘He that hath seen 


199 


The Designations in John 

of the relation expressed by the term “ only begotten 
Son” having been already existent before the giving: 
otherwise how is the greatness of the love expressed in 
the giving to be measured? Similarly in a passage 
like 3^"^ there seems an implication of the Sonship as 
underlying the mission: He was sent on this mission 
because He was Son, — He did not become Son by be- 
ing sent. In like manner the remarkable phrase “ God 
only begotten ” in Jno appears to be most readily 
explained by supposing that it was as God that He was 
the unique Son: and, if so, it seems easiest to under- 
stand “ the glory of an Only Begotten of the Father,” 
which men saw in the incarnate Christ (i^^) as the 
glory brought with Him from heaven. In this case. 
It is obvious, John goes far toward outlining the foun- 
dations of the doctrine of the Trinity for us: and it 
Is a mistake not to see in his doctrine of the Logos and 
of the Only Begotten God and of the Divine Son, the 
elements of that doctrine. 

With this high doctrine of the divine Sonship in 
connection with Jesus the way is prepared for the ex- 
press assertion that He is God. This, 
‘God* as has already been incidentally pointed 
out, is done in express words in this Gos- 
pel. The evangelist declares that that ‘Word,’ which, 
on becoming flesh, is identified with ‘ Jesus Christ,* 
was in the beginning with God and was ‘God’ (i^), 
and calls Him in distinction from the Father, ‘ God 
only begotten ’ And Thomas, his doubts of the 

me hath seen the Father ’ ? We need not stop to pick out other expres- 
sions that admit of no lower interpretations, because the evangelist has 
made it clear by his Prologue what construction he himself put upon 
his own narrative.” 


200 


The Designations of Our Lord 

resurrection removed, greets Him with the great cry, 
“ My Lord and my God” (20^®) : and more to the 
point, our Lord Himself, who had elsewhere declared 
Himself one with God (10^®), and had asserted that 
He and the Fadier interpenetrated one anther (10^®), 
and that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father 
( 14®) , expressly commended Thomas for this great con- 
fession and thereby bore His own testimony to His 
proper deity (20^®). The deity of Jesus which in the 
Synoptists is in every way implied is, therefore, in John 
expressly asserted, and that in the use of the most 
direct terminology the Greek language afforded. To 
this extent, it is to be allowed that John’s Gospel is in 
advance of the Synoptists. 

This advance is commonly represented as the index 
of the development that had taken place between the 
time when the Synoptics were written 
and the much later time when John was 
written. John, coming from a period 
almost a generation later than the Synoptics, it is said, 
naturally reflects a later point of view. Of course 
John’s Gospel was written thirty or thirty-five years 
after the Synoptics. But it is an illusion to suppose that 
it therefore sets forth a later or more developed point 
of view than that embedded in the Synoptics. The 
Synoptics present a divine Christ, as we have seen, and 
are written out of a point of view which is simply sat- 
urated with reverence for Christ as divine. John is 
written from no higher point of view, and records noth- 
ing from the life of Jesus which more profoundly re- 
veals His consciousness of oneness with the Father than 
the great utterance of Mt 1 or which more clearly an- 
nounces the fundamental idea of what we call the 


201 


The Designations in John 

Trinity than the great utterance of Mt 28^®. There is 
^ advance in conception in John over the Synoptics: 
there is only a difference in the phraseology employed 
to express the same conception. The Synoptics present 
Jesus Christ as God; only they do not happen to say 
‘ God ’ when speaking of Him : they say ‘ Son of Man,’ 
' Son of God,’ Sharer in ‘ the Name.’ It did not, how- 
ever, require thirty years for men who thoroughly be- 
lieved Jesus to be divine to learn to express it by calling 
Him ‘ God.’ In a word, it is in the mere accident of 
literary expression, not in the substance of doctrine^ 
that the Synoptics and John differ in their assertion of 
the deity of Christ. Accidents of literary expression 
are not products of time, and differences in modes of 
expression do not ^gue intervals of time. 


THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN 
ACTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 


How great an illusion it is to look upon John as 
reflecting a new phase of teaching, which had grown up 

„ , ^ , only in the course of years, in speaking 

Value of Acts* . \ , . , r- i 

Testimony Jesus plainly as God, may be illus- 
trated by attending to the designations 
employed of our Lord in the Book of Acts and in the 
letters of Paul. ( The Book of Acts and the Epistles 
of Paul both bring us testimony to how Jesus was 
thought and spoken of in Christian circles at the time, 
and indeed before the time, when the Synoptics were 
composed. The Book of Acts was not only written 
by the author of one of the Synoptic Gospels,^ but 
purports to record conversations and discourses by the 
actors in the great drama of the founding of the Chris- 
tian Church; and indeed could not have seriously mis- 
represented them, — seeing that it was published in their 
lifetime, — without having been at once corrected. We 
may learn from it, therefore, how Jesus was esteemed 
by His first followers, including those who had enjoyed 


^ This certainly cannot admit of doubt: and it is pleasant to be able 
to record that the evidence has been recognized as overwhelming even 
by Harnack: cf. his Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten E'van- 
geliums und der A postelgeschichte, 1906. That Harnack is unwilling 
to accord to Luke his true rank as an exact historian does not lessen 
the value of his admission of his authorship of the Gospel (including 
the infancy portion) that bears his name; and of the Acts, throughout. 


The Designations in Acts 203 

His daily companionship throughout His ministry. The 
Epistles of Paul are none of them of later date, and 
many of them are of earlier date, than the Synoptic 
Gospels, and bring us, therefore, testimony to the esti- 
mation in which Christ was held in the Christian com- 
munity at about the time when the Synoptic Gospels, 
or the sources on which they depend, were written. 
The conception of Jesus given expression alike in the 
Synoptics, in Acts and in Paul’s Epistles, it cannot be 
doubted, was aboriginal in the Church.^ But this con- 
ception is distinctly that expressed in its own way in the 
Gospel of John. 

The narrative of Acts does not concern the acts of 
Jesus during the period of His earthly life, but those 
of the exalted Jesus through His serv- 
* Jesus’ in Acts ants the Apostles (i^: “began”). It 
is natural, therefore, that the simple des- 
ignation ‘ Jesus ’ should occur less frequently in its pages 
than in the Gospel narrative; and that even when Jesus 
Is spoken of, which is of course comparatively infre- 
, quently. He should be spoken of by a designation more 
expressive of the relation existing between Him and His 
followers, whose acts it is proximately the business of 
this book to describe. Accordingly in Acts the rever- 
ential ‘ the Lord ’ becomes the ruling designation of 
Jesus, and the simple ‘ Jesus ’ takes a subordinate place, 
both as the narrative designation and in the reports 

2 Harnack, in the Preface to the above-mentioned work, says: “The 
genuine epistles of Paul, the writings of Luke, and Eusebius’ Church 
History are the pillars for the knowledge of the history of the earliest 
Christianity.” This is true testimony: and it only remains to give to 
the testimony of these three pillar-witnesses its real validity to rise in 
our conception of early Christianity far above not only the average 
“ critical ” conception, but Harnack’s own. 


204 Designations of Our Lord 

of the remarks of our Lord’s followers incorporated 
in the narrative. Nevertheless it is employed by Luke 
himself with sufficient frequency to show that it sug- 
gested itself on all natural occasions. Thus, for ex- 
ample, Luke uses it in the first chapter where he is 
himself narrating what Jesus did before His ascension 
and elsewhere currently in such phrases as 
“preaching Jesus” (5^^ 8^® 9^^ “proving that 

Jesus is the Christ”(9^^ 18^’^® 28^^), and the like (42>i3,is 
5^0 yS5 g 27 ig 25 ^^ records it as employed in a 

natural way by the two chief spokesmen in Acts, Peter 
in the earlier portion ( T® 2 ^ 2 ’^® 5 ^^ cf. 4“^’""), 

and Paul in the later portion ([9^’“^] 17^ 19^’^^^^, 

as well as occasionally by other actors in the historical 
drama (418.27,30 ^4o ^17, [20] j^[i3].i5 2519), including 

the angel explaining the ascension (i^^) and Jesus Him- 
self revealing Himself to Paul (9^ 26^®). 

The fuller form, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (10^®), or 
more frequently, ‘Jesus the Nazarene ’ (2““ 6^^ 22® 
26^) also occurs, not as a locution of 
l^Treth^’ Luke’s own. Indeed, but upon the lips 
of Peter (2““ 10^®), and Paul (22^ 26®), 
and In one case as a description of Jesus by Himself 
(22®) ; and also on the lips of the Inimical Jews de- 
scribing with some contempt the great claims made by 
His followers for “this Jesus the Nazarene” ( 61 '*). 
Twice, Indeed, the full name ‘ Jesus Christ the Naza- 
rene ’ Is employed, as a solemn designation throwing 
up for observation His entire personality in all its 
grandeur (3^4^^). 

From these two last-named instances we may learn, 
what otherwise Is sufficiently illustrated, that the full 


The Designations in Acts 


205 


sacred name ‘ Jesus Christ ’ was in easy use by our 
Lord’s first followers, whenever they 
Chri^t^* wished to speak of Him with special 
solemnity. Luke himself so employs it 
in his narrative (8^^), and he quotes it from Peter 
(288 ^34 and Paul (16^®) — in each instance as 

employed in circumstances of great ceremoniousness, in 
demanding faith or in working cures by this great Name. 
It is in similar conditions that the even more complete 
designation ‘Jesus Christ the Nazarene ’ (3® 4^^^) oc- 
curs; and that a designation which occurs very fre- 
quently in the Epistles, ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ (ii^^ 
28^^) or ‘ our Lord Jesus Chrijt ’ (15^® 20=^^), appears 
as in use by the Apostles, — Peter Paul (20“^), 

and the whole Apostolic body (15^^)? — well as by 
Luke himself (28^^). In all these instances it seems 
clear that the compound name ‘ Jesus Christ ’ is treated 
as a proper name, but of course not with any loss of the 
high significance of the element ‘ Christ.’ Perhaps it 
would not be too much to say that the compound name 
is dealt with as the ‘ royal name ’ of our Lord, the 
name which is given Him when He is to be designated 
with special ceremony and solemnity. 

In 320 5^2 24“^^ on the other hand, it is questionable 
whether we are to read the names together so as to 
yield the compound ‘ Christ Jesus,’ 
‘ Christ ^hich in that case meets us here for the 
Jesus Testament, or 

are to take ‘ Christ ’ as the predicate, — ‘ Jesus as the 
Christ.’ The commentators seem inclined to follow the 


3 173 186, 28^ where also the two names stand in conjunction, are dif- 
ferent: the presence of the substantive verb renders the construction of 
the “ Christ ” as predicate necessary. 


2o6 The Desigfiations of Our Lord 

latter course.^ But In 24"^ where the question is about 
Paul, who, we know from his Epistles ( i Thess 2^^ 
5^®, Rom passim), was accustomed, at an earlier date 
than this, to use the compound ‘ Christ Jesus ’ freely, 
It seems difficult not to read that compound.® And this 
Increases our hesitancy with reference to the two earlier 
passages. Paul’s familiar use of ‘ Christ Jesus ’ must 
have had a history back of It: and It seems, there- 
fore, natural that Its employment In the primitive com- 
munity should emerge Into light In such passages as we 
now have before us.® 

Another compound designation of Jesus, which does 
not occur In the Gospels,’’^ meets us with some frequency 

‘The Lord ^ Lord Jesus.’ This Is em- 

Jesus* ployed by Luke himself In the course of 
the narrative (4^^ 8^® ii“® 19^’^^’^^), and 
Is also attributed to speakers whose words are reported, 

4 So e.g. the Revised English Version at 3^0 542^ Meyer-Wendt 

at 3“®: and so also A. H. Blom, De Leer ‘van het Messiasrijk bij de 
eerste Christenen, pp. 292 and 303. On 320 Blom says: “There can be 
no doubt . . . but that Xptarov ’Irjdovv is not to be taken as one 

name, but that ^Irjffouv is the epexegetic appositive of Xpiarov, which 
has here its original significance of a dignity.” On the other side, cf. 
Gloag, Barde, Rackham at 320. 

5 So e.g. R. V. 

® Paul Feine, Jesus Chrisius und Paulus, 1902, p. 35, is among those 
(see note 4) who take the opposite view. He says: “This formula is 
a specifically Pauline one. The compound name ’‘iT^aou? Xpurro^i 
is found also in the other N. T. writings. . . . But the reverse 
sequence meets us only in Paul. No doubt it may be possible to dis- 
cover it if we wish to do so in Acts. But even in Acts 320 173 1 85 . 28 ^ 
the Xpi(rr6<;^ standing before ^Ir^aod?, is the predicate; 5^2 means 
similarly, ‘they preached the Messiah Jesus.’ Then only 242^ is left 
eT? Xptffzdv ^Iiqffoov Tziareax;^ Even here, however, it is pos- 
sible that we do not have the Pauline formula, but what is spoken of is 
faith in the Messiah Jesus.” 

In Mk 1 61 ^, Lk 24^, it is not genuine. 


The Designations in Acts 207 

— or to be more specific, to both Peter 15^^) and 
Paul (16^^ 21^^). It is even used as an address 

by Stephen (7^®). Indeed the fuller designation, ‘ the’ 
or ‘ our ’ ‘ Lord Jesus Christ,’ is employed by Luke him- 
self (28^^) and attributed alike to Peter the 

whole body of the Apostles (15^®), and Paul (20^^). 
In this last formula we have combined the three most 
usual designations of Christ, and it seems charged with 
the deepest reverence and affection for His person. 

Of course these phrases, ‘ the Lord Jesus,’ ‘ the [our] 
Lord Jesus Christ,’ witness to the prevalence in the 
Christian community of the simpler des- 
‘Lord’ Ignation ‘ Lord ’ of Jesus, and this prev- 
alence is otherwise copiously illustrated 
in Acts. As the narrative does not concern what Jesus 
began to do and teach while in His own person on 
earth, but what “ after He was ‘received up ” He did 
through His servants. His owm person is not a figure in 
the narrative, subsequent to the few opening verses 
which tell of the period before the ascension. Ac- 
cordingly outside of these verses (i®) there is no occa- 
sion to record words directly addressed to Jesus, except 
in visions 26^^), or in prayers 

759,60) ^ these occasions, however, He is ad- 

dressed by the supreme honorific ‘ Lord,’ except in 
7^^, where He is addressed more fully as ‘ Lord Jesus.’ 
It is clear that this formula is employed in all cases with 
the profoundest reverence, and is meant to be the 
vehicle of the highest possible ascription. Perhaps it 
will be well to focus our attention upon the two or 
three instances in which it is employed in direct prayer 
to Jesus y 59 , 60 )^ these He is not merely treated 
as divine — for to whom but God is prayer to be ad- 


2o8 The Designations of Our Lord 

dressed? — but also directly characterized as the pos- 
sessor of divine powers and the exerciser of divine 
functions. It is as He “ that knoweth the hearts of 
all men ” that He is appealed to at as the forgiver 
of sin at and as the receiver of the spirits of the 
dying saints at 7^^. All these traits are assigned to 
Jesus in the Gospel narratives, where Jesus claimed 
authority even on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2^® ||) and 
represents Himself as the judge before whom all were 
at length to stand and receive according to the deeds 
done in the body (Mt 25^^) : where He is represented 
as knowing what was in men and needing not that 

® De Wette, Meyer, Wendt, Nosgen, Blass, in loc., wish this passage 
to be understood as addressed to God; so also Sven Herner, Die An- 
fivendung des IVortes xbpio<; im N. T., 1903, p. 17; “In the sen- 
tence, ‘Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men’ God is 

probably meant. According to 15® (4“^) and Lk God is the 

searcher of hearts, and the prayer of the primitive Church recorded at 
424-30 is also addressed to God. Several exegetes, however, are of the 
opinion that it is directed to the Lord Christ; and the 6 xbpio<; A-q<ToT)<i 
of v. 21 can be urged in support of this.” Among the exegetes who 
consider it to be addressed to Christ are Bengel, Olshausen, Baumgar- 
ten, Lechler, Bisping, and van Oosterzee (see the solid statement of the 
last) : as also Alexander, Hackett, Gloag, Barde, Felton, Rendall. 
Rackham prefers to leave the question undecided. 

^ That the prayer in is addressed to Jesus is pretty generally 
allowed. Cf. e.g. Sven Herner, p. 16: “We think we can maintain 
that in Stephen’s prayer the words, ‘ Lord, lay not this sin to their 
charge’ (7®®), are directed to Jesus, since the immediately preceding 
verse has the expression ‘ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ ” Also A. H. 
Blom, p. 126: “It is probable that the same person is addressed by the 
xbpis as was called xbpte '‘Irjffod in v. 59.” Blom points out that 
it is the dominant conception of Acts that the forgiveness of sins 
is to be had in Christ: therefore men are baptized in His name (2^® 
22^®), and He has been exalted to God’s right hand as a Prince and a 
Saviour (5^^), and all who believe in Him receive forgiveness through 
His name (lo^^) j “and therefore,” he adds, “Stephen can have had 
Him in mind when he prayed for his foes, Lord, reckon not this sin to 
their charge (7®®).” 


The Designations in Acts 


209 


anyone should teach Him what were the thoughts of 


their hearts (Mk 2®) : and where His promise to the 


thief was that he should be that day with Him in Para- 
dise (Lk 23^^). It can occasion no surprise, therefore, 
that He should be appealed to after His return to His 
glory as at once the searcher of hearts, the forgiver 
of sins, and the receiver of the spirits of the saints. 
What we learn in the meanwhile is that to the infant 
community the ascended Jesus was their God, whom 
they addressed in prayer and from whom they sought 
in prayer the activities which specifically belong to God. 

Quite naturally in these circumstances the chief nar- 
rative name for Jesus in i\cts becomes the honorific 


‘Lord* as 
Narrative 
Name 


‘ the Lord,’ which is employed about 
twice as frequently as the simple 


‘ Jesus, and which is occasionally given 
more precision by taking the form of ‘ the Lord Jesus ’ 


(433 gi6 j j2o j^5,i3,i7^ t ^j^g Loj-d Jesus Christ’ 


(28^^). All of these designations are placed also on 
the lips of actors in the history recounted. Thus Peter 
speaks of Jesus as ‘the Lord’ in [2^^] 2^® 12^^ 


as 


‘ the Lord Jesus ’ in 1 5^^ and as ‘ the Lord Jesus 


Christ’ in ii^^: Paul as ‘the Lord 


13 


10,11,12 


19 


in 20 

26^^ as ‘the Lord Jesus’ in 16^^ 21^^, and as 

‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ in 20^^; and others speak of 


Him as ‘the Lord’ in as ‘the Lord 


Jesus’ in 7^^ and as ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ in 15^^ 
It is quite clear that ‘ the Lord ’ is a favorite designation 
of Jesus in this book, and was such also in the com- 
munity whose usage it reflects. “ And it is equally clear 


[247][5l4] g25 ^1,10, 11, 15, [17], 27, 29, 31, 35, 42 n21,21,23 


1^3,23 i535,[36],40 i 6[14],[32] jg8,9,25 i^20 23 II. 

Cf. Sven Herner, Die An^endung des Wortes xupto^ im N. T., 
p. 20: “The frequent employment of the word xupio<; in Acts is 


X 


210 


The Designations of Our Lord 

that in the use of this term what is primarily expressed 
is the profoundest reverence on the part of the com- 
munity and the highest conceivable exaltation and au- 
thority on the part of Jesus Himself. It belongs to the 
^ situation that it is often extremely difficult to deter- 
^mine whether by ‘ Lord ’ Jesus or God is meant.^^ That 
is to say, so clearly is Jesus ‘ God ’ to this writer and 

shown not merely in the cases where it refers to God, but even more 
where it is Christ that is spoken of. Acts loves to call Christ ‘ Lord.’ 
According to 2^6 God has made Jesus Lord and Christ; He is ‘the 
Lord over all’ and, therefore. He is often spoken of by the 

designation of ‘Lord’ (220.21,34 9i,[5,6]io,ii,i5,i7,27 „i6 [1510 ig25] 
2q 28 [2210,16] 23I1 [26I®]). To these must be added the passages in 
which Christ is addressed with the term ‘Lord’(iO 759,60 ^5, [6], 10, 13 
238,10,19 2610)^ and a series of citations in which He is called ‘Lord,’ 
but in connection with a ‘Jesus’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ (i2i 433 gie [^2S 

Io48] „17,20 [14IO] 1511,26 i631 195,13,17 2021,24,35 2ll3 2821). ActS 

speaks therefore extremely often of Christ by the designation ‘ Lord,’ 
even if we neglect the passages adduced at an earlier point, where 
decision is uncertain whether God or Christ is meant.” 

12 Cf. Sven Herner, op. cit., p. i6: “Whereas the Gospels depict 

the life of Jesus on earth, the narrative in Acts revolves around the 
Jesus exalted to the right hand of God, whom God has made Lord and 
Christ (226). It is He who leads to eternal life; He is the Lord of 
life (3!^). He is the Saviour, and there is salvation in no other (4I2). 
He deals out His blessings (3I®) and pours out the Holy Spirit on be- 
lievers (222). His power is not bounded by the limits of space (26H), 
and His flesh shall not see corruption (221). He is not only the Lord 
and Master according to the ordinary representation of the Gospels (cf. 
e.g. Mt 2 i 2, Mk ii 2 , Lk 1921 with Mt 2612, Mk 1411^, Lk 22I1 and John 
1312), but He is the Lord over all (io 26 ). Accordingly Acts can leave 
it undetermined whether certain assertions are to be made of God or 
Christ; a designation is employed which is common to both, and it can 
often not be decided whether God or Christ is meant, — indeed some- 
times it seems almost as if Acts had chosen a common designation just 
because it was unnecessary more precisely to express whether what was 
spoken of was to be ascribed to God or Christ. It is thus character- 
istic of Acts that a large number of passages occur where we cannot be 


2 II 


The Designations in Acts 

those whose speech he reports that the common term 
‘ Lord ’ vibrates between the two and leaves the reader 
often uncertain which is intended.^® The assimilation 
of Jesus to God thus witnessed is illustrated also in 
other ways. Thus, for example, in Peter’s Pentecostal 
sermon Jesus is conceived as sitting at the right hand 
of God (2^^) and as having been constituted “both 
Lord and Christ,” where the conjunction is significant 
(2^^) : and more explicitly still He is designated in a 
later discourse of the same Peter, “ Lord of all ” 
(10^®), that is to say, universal sovereign, a phrase 
which recalls the great declaration of Rom 9^ to the 
effect that He is “ God over all,” as indeed He who 
sits on the throne of God must be.^^ 

sure whether xupto? means God or Christ ^31,35,42 

Jl21,21,23,24 j22,10,11.12,[44],47,48,49 143,23 i^35,36 j514,15,32 jg8,9,25 

igl0,20 2q19 2i14).” 

13 Therefore commentators have been tempted sometimes to seek out 
an easy and mechanical rule of discrimination. In his Neueste Theol. 
Journal, IV., pp. 11-24 (cf. iii. p. 501), Gabler, e.g., maintained that 
anarthrous xbpio<^ always is God in the N. T., while articled xbptog 
is always Jesus. Winer in the first and second editions of his Gram- 
mar blindly repeated this. But on investigating the matter he was soon 
convinced of the error, and showed in his monograph, Disputatio de 
sensu <vocum x6pto<^ et 6 xf)pio<s im Actis et Epistolis Apostolorum 
(Erlang., 1828), pp. 26, that the assumed rule did not hold good. 
Moses Stuart had meanwhile taken up the whole subject and printed 
the results of his researches in a somewhat rambling but useful paper 
in the first volume of the Biblical Repository (1831, Oct.), to the same 
effect. Dr. A. Plummer in his commentary on Luke repeats as regards 
that book the artificial statement of Gabler. In truth the distribu- 
tion of the usage between Christ and God cannot in any book of the 
N. T. be determined on such grounds: and the difficulty in determining 
the reference is rooted ultimately in the assimilation of the two persons 
in the minds of the writers. Cf. Harnack, History of Dogma, i. p. 183. 

i^Cf. Meyer on and 


212 


The Designations of Our Lord 

That in this rich development of the conception of 
the Lordship of Jesus, His Messianic dignity is not 
^ out of mind is already apparent from the 

Man° phraseology of 2^^}^ The emphasis of 
( Peter’s preaching turns, indeed, pre- 
cisely on the fact that God has made the Jesus whom 
^the Jews crucified “ both Lord and Christ.” It is thus 
with Acts as truly as with the Gospels the Messianic 
office of Jesus on which the greatest stress is laid. Nat- 
urally as Jesus is not a speaker in the narrative of Acts, 
His own favorite self-designation of ‘ Son of Man ’ 
is here conspicuous by its absence. It occurs only a 
single time, when the dying Stephen declared that he 
saw the heavens opened and the ‘ Son of Man ’ stand- 
ing at the right hand of God (7^®). This is the only 
instance in the whole New Testament where this desig- 
nation is employed by anyone except our Lord Himself : 
Stephen’s use of it seems a reflection of our Lord’s 
declaration, “ Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man 
sitting at the right hand of power” (Mt 26^^ ||), and 
is at once Stephen’s testimony to the greatness of his 
Lord in His divine Majesty, and a witness to the genu- 
ineness of the whole series of declarations attributed 
to our Lord in which He saw Himself in the Danielic 
vision and developed on that basis His conception of 
His Messiahship in its earthy humiliation and subse- 
quent elevation to participation in the divine glory. 

The great companion designation ‘ Son of God ’ is 

^®Cf. e.g. A. H. Blom, De Leer ‘van het Messiasrijk, etc., pp. 58-9: 
“ Christians were thoroughly convinced that the Messiah had appeared 
in Jesus the Nazarene. This was the main content of the preaching of 
the Apostles, whether they turned to the Jews (Acts 222-36 ^13,26 48-12 
£ 29-32 y62 p2o^ etc.), 01 to the Samaritans ( 8 ^), or to the heathen 

^(io34-42 IJ16-41) » 


The Designations in Acts 213 


‘Son of 
God* 


almost as rare In Acts as the ‘ Son of Man.’ This pre- 
cise designation, Indeed, occurs but once, 
where we are told that Paul Immediately 
after his conversion began to proclaim 
X In the synagogues of Damascus Jesus as the ‘ Son of 
XGod’ w^hlch Is explained as meaning that he 

X proved Jesus to be ‘the Christ’ (9^^). In his speech 
In the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, Paul Indeed de- 
clared that by raising up Jesus God fulfilled the an- 
nouncement of the second Psalm, “ Thou art my Son, 
^thls day have I begotten Thee ” (13^^) ; and the risen 
Jesus Is quoted as twice speaking of God as “ the 
Father” and Peter Is cited as repeating one of 

these declarations In his Pentecostal sermon (2^^). Oc- 
casion has been taken from the circumstance that In 
all these three cases of allusion to the ‘ Father ’ the 
term employed Is ‘ the Father ’ to suggest that It Is 
not specifically Jesus’ Father but the general Father of 
spirits that Is Intended. To this Is added the sugges- 
/Tlon that In Paul’s allusion to the second Psalm it IS' 
^ of the Incarnation or even perhaps of the resurrection 
("that he Is thinking as the point when the Son was be- 
(^gotten. The conclusion is then drawn that In Acts 
there Is no allusion to a metaphysical Sonship of 
Christ.^® It must be frankly admitted that had we these 


Cf. e.g. A. H. Blom, De Leer ‘van het Messiasrijk, etc., pp. 58-9, 
70, 71 : “ We think we may conclude that the Christians as little as the 
Jews connected with the ‘ Son of God ’ the conception of a divine na- 
, ture; and that the ethical element in the idea of the Messiah lay more 
in the Tzdl<s than in the ul 6 <s of God” . . . “It attracts our at- 
tention that Jesus here and there speaks of God as ‘ the Father * 
(Acts and that Peter too on one occasion made use of this desig- 

nation (2^3). Seeing how that elsewhere in the N.T. the most inti- 
mate communion of God with men, His life for and in men, is ex- 
pressed by this term, it is all the more remarkable that Jesus by speak- 


214 The Designations of Our Lord 

passages alone to consider, we might hesitate to ascribe 
to Acts the doctrine of a divine Messiah. But this is 
by no means the case, and we need only note in passing 
that the title of ‘ Son of God ’ is very little in evidence 
in Acts either in its precise form or in its cognate modes 
of expression. Nevertheless, the locution ‘ the Father ’ 
does not appear in the usage of it here to be without 
suggestion of its correlative ‘ the Son ’ ; and Paul’s cita- 
tion of the second Psalm does not seem to be without 
implication of a Sonship for Jesus lying deeper than 
either His resurrection or His incarnation. 

The prevailing Messianic designation in Acts is the 
simple ‘ Christ,’ and Luke tells us that the staple of 
the Apostolic teaching was that Jesus 

Christ* Christ’ 8^ 9“ and 

illustrates this fact by instances recorded 
both from Peter ^18,20^ from Paul (17^ 

26^^). The general employment of the compound 
names, ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ (or 
‘ our Lord Jesus Christ ’) and even ‘ Christ Jesus,’ tes- 
tifies to the fixedness of the conviction that Jesus was 
‘ the Christ ’ and the close attachment of the title to 
His person as at least a quasi-proper name. Luke does 
not himself make use of any other Messianic title, 
except in the one instance when he tells us that Paul 

ing not of His but of the Father, does not lay claim by it for Himself 
alone to such a relation to God. And Peter follows Him in this, since he 
employs the term to the Jews, who did not yet believe in Christ, from 
which it may be inferred that this fatherlike love of God for men was 
not conceived as dependent on their belief in Christ, but as grounded 
in His nature. . . . And if we were not arbitrary in suggesting 

that for the early Christians the title ‘Servant of Jehovah* was of 
much more ethical significance than that of ‘ Son of God,’ it would 
seem to follow that we should not seek a rich ethical sense in the name 
of Father.” 


The Designations in Acts 215 

on his conversion began at once “ to proclaim Jesus 
that He Is the Son of God” (9^^). But he quotes 
quite a rich variety of such titles as employed by others. 
To Peter there Is ascribed, for example, a considerable 
series, which, moreover, he Is represented as weaving 
together In a most striking way, as all alike designa- 
tions of the same Jesus, which bring out the several 
aspects of the unitary conception fulfilled In Him. 
Prominent among them are those which apply to Jesus 
the prophecies concerning ‘ the Righteous Servant of 
Jehovah ’ (3^^’^^’“®, cf. and ‘ the Prophet like unto 

(Moses’ (3^^’^®), which are Inextricably combined with 
( those which speak of Him as ‘ the Anointed Klng.’^’ 

With respect to this intermingling of designations, cf. A. H. Blom, 
De Leer ‘van het Messiasrijk bet de eerste Christenen, 1863, p. 48: 
“ It scarcely needs to be said that only the religious-minded were in a 
position rightly to understand Jesus, and that undoubtedly the most of 
those who became His followers in the first years belonged to this class. 
The question thus becomes, What was the conception which they had 
formed of the Messiah, when they came to know Jesus? And the Book 
of Acts answers us, that the Messiah, in their view, was to be the 
offspring and successor of David, a Prophet like to Moses, the Servant 
of Jehovah, the Son of God and the Son of Man. The three first of 
these characterizations describe His dignity, while the two last raise 
the question for us what nature was ascribed to Him.” Again, pp. 
55-56: “Diverse as were the ideas expressed in these three views of a 
King like David, a Prophet like Moses, and the Servant of Jehovah, 
and little as the particulars in which they were developed permitted 
themselves to be united into a unitary, consistent, concrete conception, 
yet since the Messiah was seen in all three, they were looked upon as 
identical. Accordingly what was said of one of them was considered 
unhesitatingly to be applicable to the others. A striking example of 
this is afforded by the words applied to Jesus in Mt 17^ — ‘ This is my 
Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.’ Here 
the predicate, ‘ my Son,’ belongs to the idea of the King of Ps 2 ; the 
‘ in whom I am well pleased ’ is a trait only of the portrait of the 
Servant of Jehovah (Is 42^); and the ‘hear Him’ points to what is 
due to the prophet (Deut We meet with a like phenomenon in 


2i6 


The Designations of Our Lord 


In Peter’s early discourses ‘ the Servant (:ra 7 c) of 
God ’ is one of the most notable of the designations of 
Jesus cf. 4“^’^®) ; and along with 

occurs ‘ the Holy and Righteous 
One ’ (3^^)^® which belongs to the same 
series of designations; and in the same context appeal 
is made likewise to Moses’ prophecy of a Prophet like 
unto himself (3"^’^®) while to these is added further 


Acts. It is declared that what stands written in Ps 2^ of the King — 
‘ The Kings of the earth set themselves and the princes take counsel 
together, against the Lord and against His Anointed ’ — is fulfilled in 
God’s holy Servant (Acts cf. verse 30). Similarly the idea of 

the prophet is brought into connection with that of the Servant of Jeho- 
>^vah when Peter, after adducing the words, ‘A shall the Lord 

your God raise up,’ announces that God has actually sent him to them, 
‘having raised up to you His servant Jesus’ (Acts And if the 

splendid successor of David received the glory, which the Holy One 
of God expected (Acts so also the sufferings of the Servant of 

Jehovah were unhesitatingly assigned to the King (3^®), as Peter de- 
clares that God through all His prophets has proclaimed that ‘ His 
Christ should suffer.’ ” 

Cf. Blom, op. cit., p. 33: “Whatever weight can be attached here 
to the appeal to this anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit of proph- 
ecy and with power, as a proof that He must be the Messiah, there was 

yet another side to the manifestation of Jesus which strongly impressed 
the Christians and by which they were led to recognize His religious 
greatness. He was the offio^ (Acts 2-’^ 13^^) > the dtxato? (7^^ 

22^‘^f the xa\ dtxato<s (s^^), the dyio<$ 7 r«r? 'coo dsou (4-i>80). 

And this He was not only after His exaltation, but already on 
earth, for the guilt of the Jews was so great just because they had 
rejected and killed Him, the dyio^ xai di'xaco?^ instead of a mur- 
derer. These general predicates, however, are not enough to give us 
a just notion of the perfection which they saw in Jesus. It is undoubt- 
edly wrong for men to see nothing more in them than that He was 
guiltless in the matters of which He was accused by the Jews. This 
is already plain from the emphasis with which He is named 6 dyco?, 
b dixato<$. . . . And so the predicate 6 dyio<$ must include in 

itself a religious and ethical sense . . .” 

1® Cf. Blom, op. cit., pp. 50-57: “Although they [the Jews] applied 
these words to a particular person, they do not seem to have all thought 


The Designations in Acts 217 

the striking title of the ‘ Prince ’ or ‘ Author ’ ‘ of life ’ 
(3^®). In other discourses Peter calls Jesus a ‘ Prince 
and Saviour’ (5^^) and Indeed even ‘Judge of the 
quick and the dead’ (10^^). The composite portrait 
which he presents of Jesus the Messiah as he passes 
freely from one of these designations to another Is a 
complex and very lofty one: what Is most apparent Is 
that he conceives Him as the focus upon which all the 
rays of Old Testament prophecy converge, and as ex- 
alted above all earthly limitations. A somewhat simi- 
lar list of designations Is placed on the lips of Paul. 
^To him the ‘Lord Jesus’ (16^^ 21^^) Is ‘the 

^Christ’ (17^ 26^^), ‘the Holy One’ ‘the 

^Righteous One ’ (2 2^^ cf. 7^^ Stephen) who has come 
X as a ‘Saviour’ (13^^) to Israel, and who though a 

of the same one ; and while some held ‘ him of whom Moses wrote in 
the law’ (Jno or ‘the prophet who should come into the world’ 
(6^^ cf. for the Messiah, others must have distinguished Him from 
the Messiah (i2i. cf. 20, 740, cf. 4i), According to these last, he was, 
in harmony with the prophecy of Malachi (3I 4® ®), the returning 
Elijah, who was to prepare the way before the Messiah (Mt 17^*^). The 
Christians did not share this view. While they also had expected an 
Elijah and had found him in John the Baptist (Acts 132^), they con- 
ceived that the promise of Moses had found its fulfilment only in the 
Messiah; and Peter, therefore, in his preaching, appealed directly to 
these words (Acts 3^2), and Stephen also seems to have meant the same 
thing (7^^). Accordingly on their basis the gift of prophecy was a 
main element of the idea of the Messiah, and that, such a gift as placed 
Him by the side of Moses and elevated Him above all other prophets. 
There was certainly connected with this also an inner communion 
with God; and God was understood to speak with Him face to face, 
and to reveal to Him His counsel more clearly as in the case of Moses 
(Ex 33^1, Numb 12®*®).” 

20 Cf. 2^7. In both cases it is derived from Ps 16^®, and the term 

employed is oVro?, not as in 3^^, cf. Mk Lk 4*^, Jno 6®®, 

I Jno 2^0^ Rev 3"^. See on the titles of this sort Hastings’ D. C. G., I. 
pp. 730-31. 

21 Cf. Stanton, op. cit., p. 170. 


2lS 


The Designations of Our Lord 




‘Man’ is ‘God’s own Son’ (13^^), nay, 

In some high sense ‘ God ’ Himself (20^®), — for it was 
by nothing else than “ the blood of God ” that the 
Church was purchased.^^ 

A rapid enumeration of the mere titles applied to 
Christ, such as we have made, fails utterly to repro- 
duce the impression which they make on the reader as 
he meets them In the course of the narrative. That 
Impression Is to the effect that although the true hu- 
manity of our Lord is thoroughly appreciated (dvdpconoc, 
5“®, cf. 7^®: 2^^ cf. Lk 24^®), yet it is the 

r majesty of this man which really fills the minds of these 
"first Christians, as they perceive in Him not merely a 
man of God’s appointment, representing God on earth. 
In whom all that they can conceive to be the source of 
dignity In Old Testament prophecy meets and finds Its 
fulfillment (10^^’^®), but also something far above hu- 
manity, which can be expressed only in terms of precise 
deity (20^®). 

A side-light is thrown upon the high estimate which 
was placed among these early Christians on Jesus’ 
person by the usurpation by it of the 
‘The Name* Old Testament pregnant use of the 
term “ Name.” As in the Old Testa- 
ment we read continually of “ the Name of Jehovah ” 
as the designation of His manifested majesty, and even 
of simply “ the Name ” used absolutely with the same 
high connotation, so in Acts we read of the Name of 


22 The variant reading, “the blood of the Lord,” means the same 
thing. But Dr. Hort justly says, “roD Osod is assuredly genuine.” 
See for a discussion of the reading, Westcott and Hort, The Ne^w Tesla’- 
ment in the Original Greek, ii. pp. 98-99. 


The Designations in Acts 219 

Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of the old phrase, and 
again of simply “the Name” (5^^ cf. 3 Jno 7) used 
absolutely of Jesus. Those who were persecuted for 
His sake we are told rejoiced “ that they were counted 
worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (5^^ cf. 3 
Jno 7).^^ In the Old Testament this would have meant 
the Name of Jehovah: here it means the Name of 
Jesus.^® “ The Name,” as it has been truly remarked, 
“ had become a watchword of the faith, and is conse- 
quently used alone to express the name of Jesus, as 
it stood in former days for the Name of Jehovah (Lev 
24II) ” 26 Nothing could more convincingly bear in upon 
us the position to which Jesus had been exalted in men’s 
thoughts than this constant tendency to substitute Him 
In their religious outlook for Jehovah. 

23 Only in citations from the O. T. (221 1514,17) jggg Name of 
God ” appear in Acts. On the other hand the phrase “ the Name of 
Jesus Christ” is quite frequent: 2^^ 36.(16) ^10,18,30 540 312,10 ^14,15 
916,27 iq 43,48 1520 16I8 jg5,i3.i7 2 J 13 221® 26®. Instances like 4'’'. 12 . it 
$ 28 ^21^ where “ the Name ” or “ this Name ” is used more absolutely, 
are quite instructive from the point of view of the significance of the 
term. Only at 5^1 is the completely absolute use of it found. 

21 Cf. Meyer on 5II: “The absolute ro ovofia denotes the namexar^ 
— namely ‘Jesus Messiah’ (3® 4!®) — the confession and an- 
nouncement of which was always the highest and holiest concern of 
the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute (Lev 24H»i®), 
in which the Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as implied 
of itself. Cf. 3 Jno 7.” Cf. on the general question Giesebrecht, Die 
alttest. Schdtzung des Gottesnamens, p. 1901 ; G. B. Gray, B. £>., ill. 
p. 480, and also Conybeare, J. Q. R., ix. p. 66, and Chase, 7 . T. S., 
January, 1907. 

25 That the Name was simply “Jesus” is thought by Hackett and 
Barde: that it was “ Christ,” by De Wette and Gloag: that It was “the 
Lord Jesus Christ” is Blass’ view; and that it was “the Messiah 
Jesus” is Wendt’s, as it was Meyer’s. 

2 ®Rashdall, in loc. 


THE CORROBORATION OF THE EPISTLES 
OF PAUL 


In passing from the book of Acts to Paul’s Epistles, 
we are not advancing to a new period, in order that we 
Relative Early niay observe how Jesus had come to be 
Date of Paul’s thought of at a somewhat later date, in 
Letters developing thought of Christians.^ 

Tn point of fact, none of Paul’s letters are of a later 
- ^ date than the Acts, and the earlier of them come from 
a time which antedates the composition of that book 
by ten or fifteen years. What we are passing to is 
merely a new form of literature, — didactic literature 
as distinguished from narrative. And what we are to 
observe is not a later development of the Christian 
conception of Jesus, but only more directly and pre- 
cisely how the Christians of the first age thought of 
Jesus. 

The book of Acts does indeed tell us not only how 
Paul and his companions thought and spoke of Jesus 




1 On the witness of Paul, see in general R. J. Knowling, The Wit- 
ness of the Epistles, 1892; The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 1905* 
It used to be the fashion to attribute to Paul a very “ primitive ” chris- 
tology supposed to find expression In Romans, i and 2 Corinthians and 
Galatians; largely on the ground of this these Epistles were allowed 
to be his. It is now the fashion, recognizing that the christology of 
these Epistles too Is high, to represent Paul as the author of the deifying 
christology which, so it is said, has spread from him through the N. T. 
“Paul is everywhere the starting point,” says Wernle {Beginnings of 
Christianity, ii,, p. 294) : “ It is his Gospel which now speaks to us 
from the words of Jesus and the original Apostles.” The Gospels, from 

220 


221 


The Corroboration of Paul 

they presented Him to the faith of men; but also 
how Peter and his fellow-evangelists of the first days 
of the Gospel proclamation thought and spoke of Him : 
and to this extent the information derived from It re- 
flects an earlier usage. But neither in Acts nor in Paul’s 
(^pistles is there any hint that Peter and Paul stand re- 
The Value Oated to one another in their thought of 
of their fChrist as representatives of a less and 
Testimony ^ developed conception.* On the 

contrary in Acts the conception of the two, though 
^^lothed in different forms of speech, is notably the same : 
and in Paul’s Epistles, though differences are noted be- 
tween the other Apostles and himself in other matters, 
there is none signalized on this central point. And it 

Mark (Wernie, 251 seq., cf. Wrede, Paulus, 89) to John (Wernie, 274, 
Wrede, p. 96), reflect Paul’s christological speculations: and the rest of 
the N. T. bears equally his mark. The origin of this high Pauline chris- 
tology is left somewhat obscure. Wrede and Weinel are, on the whole, 
^inclined to say that Paul had as a Jew believed in a transcendent Mes- 
^siah, such as is pictured in the Similitudes of Enoch, say, and had only, 
on conversion, to accept Jesus as Messiah to have an exalted christology 
ready at hand. But if this doctrine of a transcendent Messiah was 
“ in the air,” why was it left to Paul to invent a transcendent chris- 
tology for the church ? And if it was “ in the air ” why need it be sup- 
posed to be derived from the later Apocalypses? Why might not the 
Apocalypses and Paul alike draw from, say, Daniel 713,14 ? 
may it not have been shared by Jesus Himself? It scarcely seems 
logical to refer all traces of a transcendent christology in the N. T. 
to Paul; and then to refer Paul’s doctrine to a generally active cause. 
The single solid result of the movement is, thus, the general recognition 
that the christology of the N. T. at large is “ transcendent.” 

2 Cf. Knowling, The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, pp. 44, 45; 
“The Twelve and St. Paul differed, no doubt, in many ways; but 
there is no trace that the former opposed the Gentile Apostle in the 
estimate which he formed of the person of Christ and of His relation- 
ship to the Father.” “ If the deification of Christ was due to St. Paul, 
how is it that we do not hear of any such opposition, of any such viola- 
tion of Jewish feeling and belief?” 


222 The Designations of Oiir Lord 

IS distinctly to be borne in mind that these Epistles were 
written not merely in the lifetime of the original apostles 
of Christ, but also in full view of their teaching, and with 
an express claim to harmony with it. Their testimony 
is accordingly not to Paul’s distinctive doctrine with 
regard to the person of Jesus, but to the common doc- 
trine of the Churches of the first age, when the Churches 
included in their membership the original followers of 
Jesus.® They, therefore, do not present us a different 
usage from that reflected in Acts and the Synoptic Gos- 
pels, but the same usage from a different point of sight. 
'"As didactic writings addressed by a Christian leader to 
"Christian readers they enable us to observe, as the his- 
torical books do not, how Christians of the sixth and 
seventh decades of the first century were accustomed to 
speak of the Lord to one another; and accordingly 
what their thought of Jesus was as they sought to 
quicken in themselves Christian faith and hope and 
to bring their lives into conformity with their profes- 
sions. Not merely in point of date, therefore, but also 
in point of intimacy of revelation, the Epistles of Paul 
present to us the most direct and determining evidence 
of the conception of Jesus prevalent in the primitive 
Church. 

It belongs to their character as didactic rather than 
narrative writings, for example, that in Paul’s Epistles 
the designation of our Lord by the sim- 
Constant i Jesus ’ falls Strikingly into the back- 

ground, while the designation ot idim 

® Cf. Stanton, The Jevjtsh and Christian Messiah, p. 156-7. 

*Cf. Robinson on Eph (p. 23) : “To St. Paul, Jesus was preemi- 
nently ‘ the Christ.’ Very rarely does he use the name ‘ Jesus ’ without 
linking it with the name or the title ‘ Christ.’ ” Cf. p. 107. 


The Corroboration of Paul 223 

as ‘ Lord ’ comes strikingly forward.® This phenome- 
non we already observed in Acts; it is much more 
marked in Paul. The simple ‘ Jesus ’ occurs in all these 
Epistles only some seventeen times, while the simple 
‘Lord’ occurs some 144 or 146 times, to which may 
be added 95 to 97 more instances of the use of ‘ Lord ’ 
in conjunction with the proper name.® And this con- 
stant application of the term ‘ Lord ’ to Jesus must not 
be imagined merely a formal mark of respect.’' It is 
the definite ascription to Him of universal absolute 
dominion not only over men, but over the whole uni- 
verse of created beings (Phil 2^S Rom 10^^).* 

It is, of course, true that Paul has the exalted Jesus 
in mind in thus speaking of Him. It was only on His 
Ground exaltation that Jesus entered upon His 

of Jesus* dominion. But it by no means follows 

Lordship conceived Jesus to have acquired 

His ‘ Lordship,’ in the sense of His inherent right to 
reign, by His exaltation. On the contrary, to Paul it ^ 
was the ‘ Lord of Glory ’ who was crucified ( i Cor 2®) . 

® On the relation of ‘ Christ ’ and ‘ Lord ’ in Paul’s usage cL Robin- 
son, Com. on Ephesians, pp. 72-90. 

®The statistics of Paul’s employment of the various designations of 
our Lord are carefully given by Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 
1902, pp. 21 seg. The text he uses is Nestle’s ed. 3, 1901. 

Cf. Knowling op. cit., pp. 39, 65, etc.: “No criticism has sufficed 
to do away with the peculiar significance of this title.” . . . We 
must “ frankly admit that St. Paul had very far overstepped the limits 
of Christ’s humanity when he finds in Him the Lord of the O. T.” 

® It was a notion of Baur’s {Der Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. p. 85, 
iV. T. Theologie, p. 193) that ‘Lord’ in Paul always means ‘Lord of the 
Church,’ through whom salvation has been brought to men. Not only 
the passages cited, but many others, such as 1 Cor 8®, negative this. 
Dr. Sanday (on Rom i^, p. 10) supposes that this was the primary 
meaning of the term: “On the lips of Christians, xopiog denotes the 
idea of ‘ sovereignty,’ primarily over themselves as the society of be- 


224 


The Designations of Our Lord 

That Is to say, even in the days of His flesh, Jesus was 
to him Intrinsically “ the Lord to whom glory belongs 
as His native right.”® That Paul usually has the ex- 
alted Christ In mind when speaking of Him as Lord 
Is only thus a portion of the broader fact that, writ- 
ing when he wrote, and as he wrote, he necessarily had 
the exalted Christ In mind In the generality of his 
speech of Him. He was not engaged In writing a hls- 
^J:orIcal retrospect of the life of the man Jesus on earth, 
but In proclaiming Jesus as the all-sufficient Saviour 
of men. That he recognized that this Jesus had entered 
upon the actual exercise of His universal dominion 
only on His resurrection and ascension, and In this 
sense had received It as a reward for His work on 
earth (Phil 2®, Rom 14®) merely means that, no less 
than to our Lord Himself, the earthly manifestation 

lievers (Col iisseq.)^ but also over all creation (Phil Col 

jie.iT).” “The title,” he adds, “was given to our Lord even in His 
lifetime (Jno is^^), but without a full consciousness of its signifi- 
cance: it was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to 
express their central belief (Phil 2^seq.).»» These remarks, however, 
require revision. Though the term “ does not in itself necessarily in- 
volve divinity ” and “Jews may have applied it to their Messiah (Mk 
1236,37^ Pss Sol 17^®) without meaning that He was God” — and indeed 
His followers may have applied it to Jesus in its lower connotation 
during His lifetime and afterwards, — ^yet its association with the 
‘ Lord ’ of the Lxx. gave it also its divine implication from the begin- 
ning, and in point of fact it is so employed from the first. 

9 Cf. T. C. Edwards on i Cor 2^ ; who rightly takes the genitive as 
genitive of characteristic quality, and explains: “The Lord to whom 
glory belongs as His native right. . . . Glory is the peculiar attri- 

bute of Jehovah among all the gods (Ps 29^). The expression is theo- 
logically important because it implies that Jesus was Lord of Glory, 
that is Jehovah, and that the Lord of Glory died (cf. Acts 3^®).” 
Passages like 1 Cor 11 ^^, “the Lord’s death,” “the body and 

blood of the Lord,” are quite similar in import, owing to the exalted 
sense of the term ‘ Lord.’ Hence Heinrici speaks of “ the paradox ” in 
such expressions. Cf. Heinrici-Mever. ed. 1896, pp. 3 53 and 363. 


The Corroboration of Paul 225 

of Jesus was to Paul an estate of humiliation upon which 
the glory followed.^® But the glory which thus followed 
the humiliation was to Paul, too, a glory which be- 
longed of right to Jesus, to whom His lowly life on 
earth, notJHis subsequent exaltation, was a strange ex- 
perience. ' Jt was one who was rich, he tells us, who 
rm Jesus became poor that we might through His poverty 
^become rich (2 Cor 8®) ; it was one who was in the 
form of God who alyured clinging to His essential 
equality with God and made Himself of no reputation 
by taking the form of a servant, and stooping even to 
the death of the cross (Phil When Pajjl 

speaks of Jesus, therefore, as ‘ Lord ’ it is not espe- 
cially of His exaltation that he is thinking, but rather 
“ the whole majesty of Christ lies in this predicate 
for him, and the recognition that Jesus is ‘ Lord’ ex- 
presses for him accordingly the essence of Christianity 


Cf. on this Meyer on 2 Cor 4^ (E. T. pp. 229-30) : “ For Christ 
in the state of His exaltation is again, as He was before His incarna- 
ti^ (comp. Jno ly®), fully h fxop(pfi dsod and Ua Oeib (Phil 2®), 
hence in His glorified corporeality (Phil 321) the visible image of the 
invisible God. ... It is true that in the state of His humiliation 
He had likewise the divine do^a^ which he possessed xard Tzveopa 
dyiu}(Tuvrj<s (Rom i^), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and 
truth (Jno 1^^), and through His miracles (Jno 2II), He made known 
^(Jno 14®) ; but its working and revelation were limited by His humili- 
^ ation to man’s estate, and He had divested Himself of the divine appear- 
^ance (Phil 2'^®®'!-) till in the end, furnished through His resurrection 
with the mighty attestation of His divine Sonship (Rom i^), He en- 
tered, through His elevation to the right hand of God, into the full 
communion of the glory of the Father, in which He is now the God- 
man, the very image and reflection of God, and will one day come to 
execute judgment and establish the Kingdom.” “The whole acknowl- 
edgment of the heavenly xupcorrj? of Jesus as the <r 6 v 0 povo<^ of 
(^jGod,” says Meyer justly on Rom 10^, “ is conditioned by the acknowl- 
edgment of His previous descent from heaven, the incarnation of the 
Son of God, 83 , Gal 4^, Phil 2^, et air 
The phrase is Meyer’s, on 2 Cor 4®. 


226 The Designations of Our Lord 

(Rom 10®, 2 Cor 4^ i Cor I2^ Phil 2^^). The proc- 
lamation of the Gospel is summed up for him therefore 
in this formula (2 Cor 4^); the confession of Jesus 
as Lord is salvation (Rom 10®), and it is the mark of 
a Christian that he serves the Lord Christ (Col 3^^) ; 
for no one can say that Jesus is Lord except in the Holy 
Spirit (i Cor 12^). 

Obviously the significance of the title ‘ Lord ’ as 
applied to Jesus by Paul is not uninfluenced by its con- 
‘Lord’ a stant employment of God in the Greek 
Proper Name Old Testament, and especially in those 
of Jesus Qij Testament passages which Paul ap- 
J plies to Jesus, in which ‘ Lord ’ is the divine name 
(e. g., 2 Thess i®, i Cor io®’“®, 2 Cor 3^^ 

Rom 10^^ Eph 6^ 2 Tim 2^® 4^^: Isaiah 45“^ is cited 
vXwith reference to God in Rom I4^\ and with reference 
to Jesus in Phil 2^®)d^ Under the influence of these 
passages the title ‘ Lord ’ becomes in Paul’s hands almost 
a proper name, the specific designation for Jesus con- 
ceived as a divine person in distinction from God the 
Father. It is therefore employed of Jesus not merely 
constantly but almost exclusively. It is doubtful 
whether it is ever once employed of God the Father, 
outside of a few citations from the Old Testament: 
and in any case such employment of it is very excep- 

12 Cf. Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, p. 38: “6 xvpio? 
became to him ever more the heavenly Jesus, to whom he belonged 
with all his thoughts and activities. Jesus was to the Apostle the em- 
bodiment of God. This follows from the peculiarity which meets us 
also in Acts 22s, i p 3^5, that with Paul xopto<s in O. T. 

citations is often applied to Jesus: 2 Thess i®, 1 Cor 2 Cor 1 

Cor 10®, 2 Cor 31®, Rom Eph 6^, 2 Tim 2^^ 4^^. In Rom 14I1, 
Is 4523 is applied to God : in Phil 2^^ seq. to Christ.” 


The Corroboration of Paul 227 

tional. It is accordingly in point of fact the determinate 
title for Jesus as distinguished from God the Fatherd* 
x\s such ‘ the Lord Jesus Christ ’ is coupled with ‘ God 
our Father ’ (or ‘ the Father ’) as the co-source of that 
grace and peace which Paul is accustomed to invoke 
on his readers in the addresses to his Epistles ( i Thess 
i\ 2 Thess T’ 2 ^ I Cor T, 2 Cor T, Gal T, Rom T, Eph 
T, Phil T, I Tim T, 2 Tim T, Titus cf. Eph i 
Thess 2 Thess i^“). And throughout the Epistles 
Jesus as ‘ the Lord ’ and the Father as ‘ God ’ are set over 
against each other as distinct and yet cpnigined objects 
of the reverence of Christians, and distinct and yet con- 
joined sources of the blessings of which Christians are 
the recipients. 

13 Cf. David Somerville, St. PauVs Conception of Christ, 1897, pp. 
124 seq.: “ The term ‘ Lord ’ occurs hundreds of times in the Epistles, 
and expresses the conviction of the supremacy of Christ which the 
Apostle shared with the entire primitive Church. In the nomenclature 
of the Apostle the Father is 6 Christ is xvpio<;. The term 

‘Lord,’ except when he quotes from the O. T. (in which case xupio<s 

is used of God, being the lxx. translation), uniformly describes Christ 
in Paul’s Epistles. That he regards it as Christ’s proper designation 
we see from i Cor 8^,6^ also from Eph 4^, i Cor Wherever ‘ Lord ’ 
occurs we are to understand him as referring to Christ, i Cor 419 3^ 
Rom 14^, which Weiss adduces as exceptions, are so only in ap- 
pearance.” Cf. also Sven Herner, Die Annvendung des Wortes xbpto<s 
im N. T., p. 22, speaking of the Ep. to the Romans, he says: “If we 
direct our attention here to the verses where xupio<; represents God, 

we find that they are all citations from the O. T.: 14II form 

no exception to this rule. Outside the O. T. citations, on the other hand, 
xupto(; in Romans means our Lord Jesus Christ, and no certain ex- 
ception to this rule occurs. . . . These citations are not always, 
however, able to alter the usage of Paul. We not only have an in- 
V stance in which in Romans — as in the Gospels and Acts — a passage is 
applied to the Lord Christ in which in the O. T. the Lord Jehovah is 
%poken of (1012); but also two passages (iji-^) in which an O. T. 
")*Lord God’ is altered to (iiS) ‘God.’” 


228 


The Designations of Our Lord 

No doubt by this elevation of Jesus as ‘ Lord ’ to the 
side of God^^ certain peculiarities of expression are pro- 
Jesus Embraced duced which are on a surface view suffi- 
in the One ciently puzzling. Thus, for example, 
Godhead declaring the nonentity of the ob- 

jects of heathen worship, Paul asserts roundly that 
“ none is God except One,” and proceeds to explicate 
this assertion by remarking that, although there may 
exist so-called gods whether in heaven or earth, as there 
are — obviously among the heathen — many gods and 
many lords, “ yet to us there is one God, namely, the 
^ Father, from whom are all things and we unto Him ” 
( I Cor 8^'®) . But he does not stop there, but adds at 
^once, “ And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are 
all things and we through Him ” ( i Cor 8®) . This 
addition might seem to a superficial reading to stultify 
his whole monotheistic argument: “There is no God 
but one; . . . for to us there is one God . 

and one Lord.” There is but one possible solution. 
Obviously the one God whom Christians worship is 
conceived as, in some way not fully explained, without 
prejudice to .His unl^ sub sistent Jn both the ‘ one 
God,’ viz., the Father and the ‘ one Lord,’ viz., Jesus 
Christ. Otherwise there would be a flat contradiction 

Cf. David Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 295 seq., 
where the use of the term xopio<s in the LXX. is examined, and it is 
added that it was as “ accustomed to this usage that Paul confines the 
terra xopio<s to Christ and reserves 6 s 6 <; for the Father, God” — 
and “ this plainly points to the belief that He whom he called Lord 
was in some sense God as well as He who was termed (p. 

296). Cf. p. 143: “But the fact that he habitually applies to Christ 
the term ‘ Lord ’ (xupio^'J a term that in the LXX. is practically 
equivalent to God ( deo^ ) and is the rendering of the most solemn 
name of Jehovah in the O. T., shows that in his regard He was enti- 
tled to the worship and obedience that are due to God.” 


The Corroboration of Paid 229 

between the emphatic assertion that “ none is God but 
one ” and the proof of this assertion offered In the 
explanation that to Christians there is but “ one God, 
viz., the Father ” and “ one Lord, viz., Jesus Christ.” 
And it is clear that Paul can count upon his readers 
understanding that the “ one Lord, Jesus Christ ” bears 
such a relation to the “one God, the Father” that 
these two may together be subsumed under the category 
^ ^of the one God who alone exists. We shall not say that 
there are the beginnings of the doctrine of the Trinity 
here. It seems truer to say that there Is the clear pre- 
supposition of some such doctrine as that of the Trinity 
here.^® 

There is lacking, indeed, only the conjunction of 
“the Spirit” with “God the Father” and “Jesus the 
. . Lord ” to compel us to perceive that 

Background underlying Paul’s mode of speech con- 
cerning God there is a clearly conceived 
and firmly held conviction that these three together con- 
stitute the one God of Christian worship. And other 
passages enough supply this lack. For example, later 
on In this sam.e Epistle the Apostle, speaking of those 
gifts of the Spirit with which the Apostolic Church was 
blessed, remarks in the most natural way in the world: 
“ Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit. 

Dr. Sanday, in his otherwise excellent note on Rora i^, neglects to 
consider the point here made, and speaks as if we were observing in 
these passages the formation of a christology and of a doctrine of the 
Trinity instead of the presupposition of these doctrines. He says: 
“ The assignment of the respective titles of ‘ Father ’ and ‘ Lord ’ rep- 
resents the first beginnings of christological speculation. It is stated 
in precise terms and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate 
prepositions in i Cor 8®. Not only does the juxtaposition of ‘ Father * 
and ‘Lord’ mark a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ; it 
also marks an important stage in the history of the doctrine of the 


230 The Designations of Our Lord 

And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same 
Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the 
same God” (i Cor 12^®). “Now I beseech you, 
brethren,” he says again towards the end of the Epistle 
to the Romans, “ by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the 
love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in 
your prayers to God for me” (Rom 15^^). “There 
is one body and one Spirit, even as also ye were called 
in one hope of your calling,” says he again, in a later 
Epistle (Eph “one Lord, one faith, one bap- 

tism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and 
through all, and in all.” Or, perhaps, most explicitly of 
all, in those closing words of the Second Epistle to the 
Corinthians which have become the established form of 
benediction in the Churches: “The grace of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion 
of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (2 Cor 13^^). 
From passages like these it is perfectly clear that the 
Christian doctrine of God as apprehended by Paul, and 
as currently implied in his natural modes of speech con- 
cerning Him, as he wrote in simplicity of heart and with 
no misgivings as to the understanding of his language by 
the Christian readers whom he addressed, embraced, 
in conjunction with the utmost stress upon the unity 

Trinity. It is already found some six years before the composition of 
Ep. to Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote his earliest extant 
Epistle (i Thess cf. 2 Thess i^). This shows that even at that 
date (A. D. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It is well 
also to remember that although in this particular verse of Ep. to Ro- 
mans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the triple formula 
concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier (2 Cor 13^^). There 
is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought than the 
silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, 
took its place without struggle and without controversy among accepted 
Christian truths.” Dr. Sanday neglects to note that the triple formula 
is found in Romans as well as 2 Cor., viz., 


The Corroboration of Paid 


231 


of God, the recognition at the same time of distinctions 
'jikin the Divine Being by virtue of which the Lord Jesus 
"^j^hrist and the Holy Spirit were esteemed God along 
^>/with the Father. 

But what we require to note particularly at this 
point is that to Paul, the divine name — perhaps we 
‘ Lord ’ the permitted to say, “ the Trini- 

Trinitarian tarian name ” — of Jesus is apparently 
Name of Jesus < Lord.’ God, the Lord, the Spirit, 
— this is his triad, and when he speaks of Jesus as 
‘ Lord ’ it must be supposed that this triad is in his 
mind. In other words, ‘ Lord ’ to him is not a general 
term of respect which he naturally applies to Jesus be- 
cause he recognized Jesus as supreme, and was glad 
to acknowledge Him as his Master (Eph 6^ Col 4^), 
or even in the great words of Col 2^^ as the ‘ Head ’ 
of the body which is His Church (cf. Eph 4^^). It 
is to him the specific title of divinity by which he indi- 
cates to himself the relation in which Jesus stands to 
Deity. Jesus is not ‘ Lord ’ to him because He has 
been given dominion over all creation; He has been 
given this universal dominion because he is ‘ Lord,’ 
who with the Father and the Spirit is to be served and 
worshipped, and from whom all that the Christian longs 
for is to be expected. In His own nature the ‘ Lord 
of glory’ (i Cor 2^), He has died and lived again 
that He might enter upon His dominion as ‘ Lord ’ of 
both the dead and the living (Rom 14^), and being 
thus ‘ Lord of all ’ (Rom 10^^) might be rich unto all 
that call upon Him and so fulfill the saying that who- 
soever “ shall call upon the name of the Lord ” shall 
be saved (Rom 10^^). He does not become ‘Lord,’ 
but only comes to His rights as ‘ Lord,’ by and through 


232 The Designations of Our Lord 

His resurrection and ascension, which are the culminat- 
ing and completing acts of His saving work. He Is 
‘ Lord ’ because He Is In His own person the Jehovah 
who was to visit His people and save them from their 
sins.^® 

No doubt a different representation is sometimes 
given. We are even told that there Is In these very 

Appearance passages a distinction drawn between 

of ‘ God ’ and ‘ the Lord,’ by which the 

Subordination status of ‘ the Lord ’ Is made definitely 
inferior to that of ‘ God,’ to whom He Is subject and 
whose will He executes. It Is God the Father who is 
the source and end of all things; the ‘Lord Jesus 
Christ ’ Is the mediator through whom He works ( i 
Cor 8®, cf. I Tim 2^ and such passages — dcd with the 
genitive — as the following, Rom 2^® 3^^ ^1,11,17,21^ 

Cf. Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902, pp. 165 seq.: 
“ If Jesus undertook to perform the redemptive acts which were in the 
O. T. hoped for from God’s action, so in Paul, in correspondence with 
the advance of the redemptive work which lay in Christ’s death and 
resurrection, there emerges even more strongly the idea of the divine 
activity of Christ. Paul applies to Christ words which in the O. T. 
refer to God, — 2 Thess ^2 j Cor i^i 2^® 10^2^ 2 Cor 8^^ 

Rom iqI®, Phil 2i®®®<i-, Eph 4P. i Thess 4® is doubtful. One of 
the most commonly employed designations of Christ on the part of the 
Apostle is 6 xupco^^ the name in which the lxx . prevailingly rep- 
resents the unpronounced nin\ It is not merely in the letters to 
the Thessalonians uncertain in many passages whether God or Christ 
is intended by xupto^i even in 1 Cor we still meet with a multi- 
form vacillation in the reference of xopto<^ to Christ and to God. 
Divine honors are given to Christ in 2 Thess i^seq.^ Rom Phil 

2^®. In 2 Tim 4^® a doxology such as elsewhere is given to God is 
given to Him. One of the designations of Christians is ‘those who 
call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (i Cor similarly 
Rom ic>i2seq.^ 2 Tim 222 ).^ljChrist, after He has ascended above all 
^the heavens (Eph 4^®), sits at the right hand of God as sharer in the 
divine disposition of grace to believers (Rom 8^4 seq. and has the 


233 


The Corroboration of Paul 

I Th 5^ Tit 3®) . The term ‘ Lord ’ as applied to Jesus, 
therefore, although ascribing a certain divinity to Him, 
appears to fall short of attributing deity to Him in 
its full sense. It Is the appropriate designation of a 
sort of secondary divinity, a middle being standing In 
some sense between man and God. Accordingly we 
read that while “ the head of every man Is Christ,” 
“the head of Christ Is God” (i Cor ii^), and that 
“ if we are Christ’s,” so “ Christ Is God’s ” ( i Cor 3^^) . 
The whole redemptive work of Christ Is represented as 
the working of God through Christ, as terminating ul- 
timately on God, and as redounding specifically to His 
glory (Rom 5^^ 8^ 2 Cor 5^^ Eph 16.12,14.19 ^19^ 
Col etc.). When, then, the redemptive work Is 
completed the ‘ Lordship ’ which has been conferred 
upon Christ ceases also, so that His very sovereignty 
appears as a derived sovereignty delegated for a pur- 
pose (i Cor 15^^’^*). God is appropriately spoken of 
therefore distinctly as the “ God of our Lord Jesus 
Christ” (Eph cf. Rom 15^ 2 Cor ii^\ Eph 

power to subject all things to Himself (Phil 321). Every knee shall 
bow to Him in the realms of the heavenly and the earthly and the 
underearthly (Phil 2^^). He is Lord over every lordship and power 
and might and dominion and every name that is named (Eph i20seq.^ 
Col 2^0). The O. T. day of the Lord, the day of Judgment, has be- 
come His day (i Thess 52, 2 Thess 32, i Cor i^seq.). Christ is to 
carry out the world-judgment when He appears accompanied by His 
holy angels (1 Thess 2 Thess All must appear before His 

throne (2 Cor 510). . . . The Apostle passes back and forth with 

references to God and Christ. Is 452s, which in accord with its original 
meaning is referred to God in Rom 14^^, is applied to Christ in Phil 
2^0. In Rom I4®-12 the Apostle begins with the words ‘ Who eats, eats 
to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God,* etc. (cf. i Cor lo^^). Then 
comes the beautiful declaration that we belong to the Lord in life and 
death; on which, however, he grounds the warning to judges that we 
must all stand before the judgment seat of God,** 


234 The Designations of Oiir Lord 

i^), a locution which, while intimating that the relation 
subsisting between Him and Jesus is peculiarly close, 
yet equally clearly intimates that it is not a relation of 
equality but of the nature of divine master and subject 
servantd'^ 

That a problem is raised by the passages of this class 
is obvious enough. But it is equally obvious that this 
problem cannot be solved by the attribu- 
^ certain secondary divinity to 
Christ, and much less by supposing that 
He has merely a sort of divinity communicated to Him 
quoad nos, while in His essential nature only a creature. 
The strict and strongly assevera ted monotheism of Paul 
forbids the former assumption: his definite ascription 
to Jesus of an eternal divine form of existence ante- 
cedent to His earthly career excludes the latter. Noth- 
ing could exceed the clearness and emphasis of Paul’s 

Cf. for statement of this point of view Beyschlag Dig Christologie 
des N. T., 1866, pp. 203 seq.: “Whatever there may be great and 
unique lying in the el? xvpio^^ it is undeniable that Paul purposely 
does not apply the name 0s6<$ to Christ, but rather most distinctly dis- 
tinguishes the el? xbpioq from the el? ^eo? besides whom there is 
no other. The same conception and manner of expression runs excep- 
tionlessly and in numerous instances throughout the Pauline Epistles: 
everywhere ‘ God ’=the Father, our Father, the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and everywhere the ‘Father’ and the Father only»=>God, 
our God, the ‘God of Jesus Christ’ (Eph i^'^) : everywhere in a word 
the conception of ‘God’ and ‘Father’ stand together, while the ‘Son’ 
or the ‘Lord’ is equally constantly distinguished from the ‘Father.’” 
How overstated this is may be observed by comparing it with the text. 
Cf. the long argument to the same effect in Richard Schmidt’s Die 
paulinische Christologie, etc., 1870, pp. 148 seq.; and the brief but 
pointed statement of Paul Feine, Jesus Christas und Paulas, 1902, pp. 
168, 169; also David Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, etc., 
1897, pp. 140, 141. 


The Corrohoratiofi of Paul 235 

monotheism. “ None Is God/’ says he, “ but one 
(i Cor 8^) ; and he says it, as we have seen, In Im- 
mediate connection with his re^cognltlon of ‘ one God, 
the Father” and “ one Lord, Jesus Christ” (cf. Rom 
3^^ i6“^ Gal 3^^ Eph 4^ i Tim 2®). How, then, 
could he mean to set by the side of this “ one God the 
Father ” the “ one Lord Jesus Christ ” as a second, 
although somewhat Inferior, God?^® And nothing 
could exceed the clearness and emphasis with which 
Paul represents Jesus’ divine majesty not as an attain- 
ment but as an aboriginal possession. He does not 
'say that Jesus Christ became rich that by His riches 
we might be enriched, as he must have said If he had 
conceived of Jesus as a man to whom divine powers 
and dignity were communicated that He might save 
us. What he says Is that our Lord Jesus Christ was 
rich, and became poor only for our sakes, that 
“ through His poverty we might become rich ” (2 Cor 
8®). That Is to say, that, as he expresses It In another 
place. It was to make no account of Himself for Him 
to take the “ form of a servant” (Phil 2^). Nor does 
he leave us In doubt as to the quality of the riches He 
left when He thus made Himself of no reputation by 
taking “ the form of a servant.” No heavenly hu- 

18 “ No [Being] is God except One [Being],” Evans in loc.; cf. 
Edwards in loc.: “There is but one God and the Christians’ God is 
that One.” 

i®The fallacy of writers like Beyschlag, Christologie d. N. T., 1866, 
consists in treating the phrase “to us there is one God the Father” 
as taking up and repeating the “ There is no God but One,” and the 
phrase “ and one Lord Jesus Christ ” as a kind of afterthought added 
to it (pp. 203-4). truth it is the double clause: “There is one God 
the Father . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ for us,” which takes 
up and develops the phrase, “ None is God but One.” 


236 The Designations of Our Lord 

manity suffices here: not even angelic grandeur:^® It 
was “ in the form of God ” that He was by nature 
{uTidp-gcov) : it was “equality with God ’’which He did 
not graspingly cling to. And to be “ in the form of 
God ” means nothing less than to have and hold in 
possession all those characterizing attributes which 
make God God: having which He could not but be 
equal with God, because He was just God. No wonder 
then that Paul tells us that though He was crucified 
'by man yet was He ‘the Lord of glory’ (i Cor 2®), 
that in Him dwelt “ all the fulness of the Godhead 
bodily” (Col 2^), that Israelite as He was “ according 
to the flesh ” He was something much more than 
what He was according to the flesh — nothing less in- 
deed than “ God over all, blessed forever ” (Rom 9^). 

He certainly does not mean then to contrast Jesus 
as ‘ Lord ’ with God the Father as an inferior God 
or as possessing a merely delegated 

Implication o£ indeed, does the term 

Lord lend itself readily to such a 
contrast. On the pages of Paul’s Bible — the Greek 
version of the Hebrew Scriptures — ^it stood side by side 
with ‘ God ’ as the most personal and intimate name 

20 Richard Schmidt, Die paulinische Christologie, 1870, pp. 148 
seq., represents it as difficult to fix on a formula by which to express 
Paul’s conception of what the preexistent Christ was. We may at first 
sight think that to suppose he conceived the antemundane Christ as 
man will best meet his references: but that will soon appear inade- 
quate. Nor can we satisfy ourselves that he thought of Him as an 
angel. Nor indeed that he conceived Him after the fashion of later 
Trinitarianism as of purely intro-divine relations. It is unimportant 
whether he calls Christ ‘God’ as, e.g. in Rom 9®, or not: for even if 
he applies the name to Him the question would still remain open 
whether he means by it what we should naturally express by it. This 
seems, however, in the face of Paul’s repeated attribution to Jesus of 
full deity in a great variety of modes of expression, very hypercritical. 


237 


The Corroboration of Paul 

of Deity: and thence he took It as we have seen and 
applied It to Jesus. And If It thus could not have been 
lower In Its connotation to him than ‘ Jehovah ’ Itself, 
It was charged likewise to the apprehension of his 
Gentile readers with suggestions In no way Inferior to 
those of ‘God’ Itself.^^ For him to say ‘Lord’ of 
Jesus as His most appropriate title was therefore to 
say and to be understood as saying all that he could 
say by the designation of ‘ God ’ Itself. And If never- 
theless there was to him and to his readers but one 
God, then there Is nothing for It but that we should 
recognize that for Paul and his readers two might be 
God and yet there be but one God; and that Is as much 
as to say that their thinking of God was already ruled 
by a Trinitarian consciousness. 

As for the expressions In which, despite his clear 
Intimation of the proper deity of Jesus, he yet speaks 
of Him as in some sense Inferior or. 
Subordination more precise, subordinate, to God 

the Father, it is quite clear that they 
must find their explanation In Paul’s Intimation of the 
humiliation to which this divine Person subjected Him- 
self for the purposes of redemption. When He who 
was rich became poor; when He who was and ever 
remains “ In the form of God ” made Himself of no 
reputation “ by taking the form of a servant ” : then 
and thus He became so far Inferior to and subject 
to that God the Father on an equality with whom He 
might have remained In His riches had He so chosen. 
In and for the purposes of this redemptive work He 

21 Cf. Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, i. p. 119, note i: ‘‘ Dominus in certain 
circumstances means more than Deus; see Tertull Apol. ... It 
signifies more than Soter; see Irenaeus I. i. 3: . . . ‘They say 
Saviour since they do not wish to call Him Lord’ . . .” 


238 The Designations of Our Lord 

V is the Mediator of God the Father, whose He Is, and 
who is His Head and His God; whose will Hejger- 
forms and whose purposes of grace He executes; and 
to whom, when the redemptive work Is fully accom- 
plished and its fruits garnered. He shall restore the 
Kingdom, that God may be all in all. In a word, there 
underlies Paul’s statements not merely the conceptions 
which have found expression in the doctrine of the 
Trinity and the Incarnation, but those also which have 
found expression in the doctrine of the Covenant of 
Redemption in accordance with which the Persons of 
the Godhead carry on each His own part of the work 
of redemption: and he who will not recognize these 
conceptions in the Pauline statements must ever find 
those statements a confused puzzle of contradictions, 
which can be reduced to apparent harmony only by 
doing manifest violence to one or another se ries of 
them. Only on the presupposition of these conceptions 
can it be understood how the Apostle can speak of our 
Lord now as “ in the form of God,” “ on an equality 
with God,” nay, as “ God over all,” and now as sub- 
ject to God as His Head and His God with reference 
to whom He performs all His work: and how He 
can speak of “ God the Father ” and “ Jesus Christ 
our Lord ” as each “ God over all,” and yet declare 
that there is but one Being who is God. 

With this high meaning of ‘ Lord ’ as attributed 
to Jesus in our mind it is interesting to observe the 
Designations various forms of designation into which 
Compounded this epithet enters. These run through 
with ‘ Lord ’ nearly all the possible combinations with 
the names of Jesus. ‘The (or our) Lord Jesus,’ 
which, were the title ‘ Lord ’ a mere honorific, would 


The Corroboration of Paul 239 

be the simplest of them all, but which, since that title 
is an express d ec la rati on of deity. Is now the most 
parado xica l,^^ occurs some twenty-four to twenty-six 
times, chiefly in the earlier Epistles; and Its duplicate, 
‘Jesus our Lord,’ twice more. ‘The (or our) Lord 
Christ’ Is less frequent, occurring only twice (Rom 
16^®, Col 3^^). But the full formula, ‘the (or our) 
Lord Jesus Christ,’ Is the most common of all, oc- 
curring some forty-nine times, pretty evenly scattered 
through all the Epistles. ‘The (or our) Lord Christ 
Jesus’ does not occur: but in the reverse order of the 
titles, ‘ Christ Jesus, the (or our, or my) Lord,’ this 
combination occurs ten times and by Its side, “ Jesus 
Christ, our Lord ” four times. In all these combina- 
tions the names, whether the simple ‘ Jesus,’ the simple 
* Christ,’ or the combinations ‘ Jesus Christ ’ or ‘ Christ 
Jesus,’ appear to be used as proper names, though, 
no doubt, the appellative ‘ Christ ’ does not In any of 
them become a mere proper name. Certainly In the 
phrase, “Ye serve the Lord Christ,” the term ‘ Christ ’ 
is a title of dignity which is still further enhanced 
by the adjunction of the term ‘ Lord ’ : and something 
of the same Intention to enhance an already lofty ascrip- 
tion appears traceable In the Instances where the fuller 
phrase ‘Christ Jesus, our Lord’ occurs (i Cor 
[2 Cor 4^], Rom 6“^ 8^ [Col 2«], Eph 3^ [Phil 3«]). 
But this obvious use of ‘ Christ ’ as a name of dignity 

22 Cf. Heinrici-Meyer, 1896, on i Cor 12^, p. 363: “The paradoxi- 
cal synthesis of the historical personal name with the divine name of 
dignity (cf. p. 353” [where the paradox of speaking of ‘the Lord’s 
death’ in ii 26 is adverted to]) “is the crispest and most impressive 
form of the Christian confession. The Apostle accordingly looks upon 
xbptoQ ’l7j(Tou<: as the fixed watch-word of the believing heart, and 
the key-note of spiritual speech.” 


240 The Designations of Our Lord 

by no means implies that it is not employed practically 
as a proper name. Its implications of Messiahship 
remain present and suggestive, but it has become the 
peculiar property of Jesus who is thought of as so 
indisputably the Messiah that the title ‘ Messiah ’ has 
become His proper name.^® 

It is worthy of remark moreover that not only is 

23 As Is natural, opinions differ on this matter. Says Feine, op. cit. 
29: “It is still a much controverted question. Bornemann (Meyer’s 
Com. on I Thess. maintains that A'/>C(Trd? is never a proper name 
in the N. T. : on the other hand, von Soden {Theolog. Abhandlungen 
Weizsdcker ge^vidmet, 1902, p. n8), considers Xptffzo? already to 
have won the character of a proper name so fully that it has the article 
only about sixty times.’ Westcott-Hort also print Xpiffr 6 <; when it 
stands without the article, as a proper name with a capital initial: on 
which Schmiedel (Winer, Grammatik, § 54) remarks that d Xpt(TT 6 <s 
just as truly is a proper name in a series of passages.’” “ Hausleiter 
also (p. 9) points out that ‘Christ’ has for the Apostle frequently the 
significance of a proper name for designating the person of Jesus.” 
Feine thinks the term is appellative in such passages as Rom 9® 

2 Cor $ 1 ®, Gal and that the Messianic suggestion is generally 
present. Dr. Sanday in his Inspiration, 289, speaks cautiously (but 
scarcely cautiously enough): “We know how in the Epistles ‘Christ* 
has become almost a proper name. It may perhaps retain rather more 
of its true meaning than we are apt to realize; but if not exactly a 
proper name it is rapidly becoming such.” So far, so good. But more 
doubt attaches to the assertions that follow: “In the Gospels, on the 

other hand, it nearly always means, as in the mouth of our Lord and 
His strict contemporaries it must have meant, ‘ the Messiah ’ . . . 

The compound phrase ‘Jesus Christ’ occurs a few times (Mt 
(v. 1.) i62i (v. i.)^ ji^ jno ii 7 173 2 o 31 ), but always, with one ex- 
ception (Jno 17^), as it should do, in words of the evangelist and not 
of our Lord Himself. The true phrase, the natural phrase in our 
Lord’s life-time, is of course that which we find three times in St. Mat- 
thew, ‘Jesus nvho is called Christ* (Mt 27^^’22),” Dj-, Sanday mis- 
conceives the significance of the phrase ‘ Jesus who is called Christ,* 
not perceiving that it presupposes that ‘ Christ ’ had already become a 
quasi-proper name, having in this respect the same implications as the 
compound ‘Jesus Christ.’ 


241 


The Corroboration of Paul 

‘ Christ ’ a proper name of our Lord with Paul, but 
« Christ’ Paul’s it is his favorite designation for Him.^* 
Favorite For, full and rich as Paul’s employ- 
Designation term ‘ Lord ’ is, it is not 

nearly so frequently employed by him as ‘ Christ,.’ This 
designation (more commonly with than without the 
article)^® occurs in his Epistles no fewer than 210 or 
2 JJ times in its simplicity, and many more times in 
combination with other designations. It is most dom- 
inantly Paul’s favorite name for our Lord in the great 
central Epistles — Romans, Corinthians and Galatians, 
— in which it occurs some 138 to 140 times; but it is 
also very frequent in the Epistles of the first imprison- 

24Harnack, Hist. Dog., E. T., I. p. 184 , note 2 , says: “Only in the 
second half of the second century, if I am not mistaken, did the desig- 
nation ‘ Jesus Christ ’ or ‘ Christ ’ become the current one, more and 
more crowding out the simple Jesus.” This appears to be founded on 
the relative usage of the terms in the writings of the early post-Apos- 
tolic age. On taking a broader outlook the appearance of things is 
altered. Already in Paul the simple ‘Jesus’ has retired into the back- 
ground and the simple ‘ Christ ’ together with compounds of ‘ Christ ’ 
has taken its place. There is in fact no question here of change or 
development of usage: but only of character of literature. In the 
N. T. ‘Jesus’ is only the narrative name of our Lord: ‘ Christ’ and its 
compounds, together with ‘Lord,’ the didactic name. So far as ap- 
pears from the evidence, Christians were from the beginning accus- 
tomed to speak of Jesus as ‘ Christ,’ ‘ Lord,’ whenever they were not 
merely recounting His deeds in the flesh. The use of ‘ Lord ’ and its 
high implications are recognized by Harnack as an early phenomenon 
persisting through the succeeding eras (p. 183 ). 

25 Anarthrous XpiffTo? in Paul: Rom 5 ®’® 64.8.9 g9,io,i7 9 I 6,7,17 

j25 149,16 1^8,18,20,29 i65,7,9,10^ I Cor il2,17,23,24 2 ^^ ^1,23,23 41,10,10,15 
^7 615 y 22 gll .12 g 21 III 1227 1^3.12.13.14,16,17,18,19,20,23^ 2 Cor l21 
215,17 33,14 316 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20,20 iq7,7 ii 3, 10,13, 23 i22,10,19 Qg] 

16 , 10,22 2l9.1'7.1’’.20.20,21 313 , 16 , 24 , 27,29 4 I 9 51 , 2 , 4 ^ £pli j3 2^2 415,32 

321 , 32^ pjlj] il0,13, 17, 18, 20,21,23, 29 27.16,30 38 , 9 ^ CqI j2, 27,28 22,5,8,20 3 !!^ 

Philem 6 , 8 , 30 , i Thess 3® 4 ^®; and not at all in the Pastorals; 127 in all. 


' Christ 
Jesus * 


242 The Designations of Our Lord 

ment (67 times in Eph., Col., Phil, Philemon), and 
is unusual only in the Thessalonian letters (4 times 
only) and in the Pastorals (once only). It surprises 
us somewhat to observe that next to the simple ‘ Christ ’ 
(and ‘Lord’), Paul’s favorite designation for our 
Lord is the compound ‘ Christ Jesus.’ 
This form, as we have seen, seems to 
occur occasionally in Acts, not only as 
a Pauline (24^^) but also as a primitive Christian 
(3^®) and a Lucan formula (5^“).^® But in Paul’s 
Epistles it occurs not less than 82 (84) times, regu- 
larly anarthrously (except Eph 3^ cf. 3“, Col 2®), 
and pretty evenly distributed, though with a tendency 
to increased frequency in the progress of time (Thess. 
only 2; Gal., Cor., Rom. 29; first imprisonment, 29; 
Pastorals 24). It is possible that the prepositing of 
the ‘ Christ ’ may throw greater emphasis upon the 
Messianic dignity of Jesus than was currently felt in 
the opposite compound ‘ Jesus Christ,’^"^ which is much 
less frequent in Paul (only 23 times; and not at all 
in Thess., Col., Philemon). But in any case, both 


26 Cf. also Mt 1 ^®, V. r. 

27 So e.g. Paul Feine, op. cit., p. 36 : “The ground of this combina- 

tion is a feeling of need on Paul’s part to throw the Messianic aspect 
of Jesus into the foreground. This form, XpiaTo^ accord- 

ingly has much the same significance as that in which the Apostle uses 
the simple ‘ Christ.’ ” In his comment on Rom Dr. Sanday dis- 
cusses the forms of the names of Jesus used by Paul in the addresses to 
his Epistles. He supposes that in the addresses of the earlier Epistles 
Paul used ApiffTo<^^ but in those of the later Xpiar6<: 

Irjffou?. “ The interest of this,” he adds, “ would be in the fact 
that in Xptffzdg the first word would seem to be rather 

more distinctly a proper name than in Xptffzog, No doubt 

the latter phrase is rapidly passing into a proper name, but XpurzS^ 
would seem to have a little of its sense as a title still clinging to it: the 


The Corroboration of Paul 243 

formulas are employed as practically proper names of 
our Lord, and it is difficult to trace any difference in 
the implications of their use. Along with these simple 
compounds Paul also employs the more elaborate 
formulas, ‘the (or our) Lord Jesus Christ,’ ‘Jesus 
Christ our Lord,’ ‘ Christ Jesus, the (or our, or my) 
Lord.’ The first of these meets us most frequently, 
C occurring indeed no fewer than 49 times, pretty evenly 
(.distributed through the Epistles. (The second occurs 
( only four times (Romans 3 and i Cor i) : and the 
last only ten times (two central groups of Epistles 
only). In these sonoxqus formulas the Apostle ex- 
presses his deep sense of reverence to the person of 
Jesus, and he tends to fall into one or the other of 
them whenever he is speaking of his Master with 
solemnity and exalted feeling.^® It is noticeable that 

phrase would be in fact transitional between Aptffzd^ or 6 Xptffvo^ 
of the Gospels and the later Apcffzo^ ^Irj<jov<$ or Xpiazo^i simply 
as a proper name.” He refers us to his own Bampton Lectures^ p. 289 
seq.y and to an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in The Expositor, 
1888, i. pp. 386 seq. According to Feine, then Xpiffzd? is more 

of a proper name; according to Sanday it is less of a proper name, 
than ^It}(Tou<^ Xpi(jz 6 <s. The truth seems to be that both are prac- 
tically proper names: and neither has lost the whole implication of 
office. For the rest is it not rash to speak of one as an “ earlier ” or 
a “later” form than the other? “Jesus Christ” is, indeed, placed 
once on our Lord’s lips (Jno 17^), and is used by the evangelists (Mt 
ii,i8 1521^ ]y^|j ji^ jjjo ii7 [178] but “Christ Jesus” already appears 
on the lips of the earliest followers of Jesus (Acts 3^®), and in Paul’s 
earliest epistle (i Thess 5^®)* “Jesus Christ” appears not only in 
1 Thess (i^ 3I j 9 , 23 , 28 )^ but also in James (i^ z^). 

28 Cf. Feine, op. cit., pp. 41 seq.: Xpiffz 6 <$ 6 xvpto^ 

'Irjffou<; are already solemn names of Jesus: and this is in still 
higher degree the case with 6 xopto^ (ijpwv^ Tr)ffoo<: Xptffz 6 (s. It 
gives expression formally and ceremoniously to the majesty of Jesus 
over against the believers, and has something in it of the nature of a 


244 The Designations of Our Lord 

they are apt to be employed in the formal solemn 
opening and closing sections of his Epistles, and when- 
ever Jesus is named in direct connection with God. 

In the Pastoral Epistles the compound names ‘ Jesus 
Christ ’ and ‘ Christ Jesus ’ occur also in composition 
with the epithet ‘ Saviour ’ : ‘ Christ 
^Saviour^* Jesus our Saviour’ (Titus i^), ‘Jesus 
Christ our Saviour’ (Titus 3®), ‘our 
Saviour Christ Jesus’ (2 Tim i^®), ‘our Saviour 
Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2^^). In the earlier Epistles, 
Jesus is indeed not only treated as our ‘ Saviour,’ but 
the epithet is given Him as a title of honor, it being 
a mark of Christians that they look for a ‘ Saviour ’ 
from heaven, even ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Phil 3“^ 
cf. Eph 5“®). But the precise forms of expression 
occurring in the Pastorals are not found in these. The 
significance of the epithet ‘ Saviour ’ thus applied to 
Jesus may perhaps be suggested by the circumstance 
that it is in the same Epistles a standing epithet of 
God. Paul describes himself as an apostle of Jesus 
Christ “ according to the command of God our Saviour 
and Christ Jesus our hope” (i Tim ih cf. Titus i^), 
and wishes Timothy to live so as to be acceptable “ in 
the sight of God our Saviour” (2^ cf. Titus 2^^) 
whose glory it is to be ‘the Saviour’ of man (4^^), 
in accordance with His love to men as our ‘ Saviour ’ 
(Titus 3^).’*^ The ascription of this epithet thus in- 
confession. ... In Paul this formula occurs for the most part in 
the opening and closing greetings. . . . And it occurs frequently 

when Jesus is named in connection with God.” “Both of the formulas 
[A^:<rro 9 Ur}<roo^ 6 x6pto<^ fioo^ and Xpi(TTd<$ 

6 xupio^ have something very solemn about them.” 

Cf . Swete on Rev : “ The cry '// awrrjpia T<p xai zip &pv(<p 
is equivalent to attributing to Both the title of Icjzyjpj so freely 


The Corroboration of Paul 245 

terchangeably to God and to Jesus assimilates Jesus 
to God and leaves us in less doubt bow we are to take 
tbe passage in Titus 2^^ wbicb in contrast 
God* Christ’s first coming in grace 

speaks of tbe impending “ appearing 
of tbe glory of” — shall we' say “the great God and 
our Savi our Jesus Christ”? — or shall we not rather 
say “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”? If 
the latter construction is followed, as it seems it should 
be,®° it provides us with one of the most solemn ascrip- 
tions of proper deity to Jesus Christ discoverable in the 
whole compass of the New Testament. 

Perhaps something similar is implied in the designa- 
tion of Him in Eph i® as the ‘ Beloved,’ the epithet 
appearing in its simple majesty without 
‘The Beloved* qualification: “His grace which He” 
— that is God — “ freely bestowed on us 
in the Beloved.” We have already had occasion to 
point out the significance of this phrase on its appear- 

given by loyal or pliant cities of Asia to the Emperors, but belonging 
in Christian eyes only to God and to His Christ. The Pastoral Epistles 
supply examples of both applications, (i) i Tim 2^, Tit 3^^ {2) 
Tit 2^3 3®.” Also p. clxiii. : “The phrase is perhaps suggested by 
the free use of (TioTijp on coins and in inscriptions in reference to cer- 
tain of the heathen deities (e.g. Zeus, Asklepios), and to the Emperors. 
John recalls the word from these unworthy uses, and claims it for the 
Ultimate Source of health and life. But in this attribution he includes 
Jesus Christ.” 

Cf. Weiss (Meyer) in loc., correcting Huther. Cf. Schmiedel- 
Winer, Grammatik, p. 158: “ In Tit 2^^, 2 P i^, 2 Thess Jude 4, Eph 
5®, and Acts 20^8^ according to the badly attested reading tt]v ixxX, too 
xupioo xai 0 £od, grammar strictly requires, as well as in 2 P 1^^ 
220 32,18^ there should be in every case a single person in- 
tended, and therefore Christ be called or povo? deffTrori^t^. 

Nevertheless it is possible for xopioq in 2 Thess and Jude, and 
in Eph (and Acts) to stand as a designation of a new person (§19, 
13 d). That (TWTTjp too in Titus and 2 P can also be so construed, 


2^6 The Designations of Our Lord 

ing in the Gospels as a designation of Jesus (Mt 3^^ 
12^^ 17^ Mk 9'^, Lk 3““). Here the same epithet 
meets us without the defining accompaniments; Jesus 
Christ is in full simplicity set forth as by way of 
eminence ‘ the Beloved/ in and through whom God 
has communicated His grace to men. This designation 
of Christ “ makes us feel,” we are told, “ the great- 
ness of the divine grace. But it does this only by 
making us feel the greatness of the Mediator of this 
grace. It is only at the cost of the blood of the 
‘ Beloved ’ that God has redeemed us. The epithet 
of ‘ Saviour ’ is a designation of our Lord from the 
point of view of men : this epithet of ‘ Beloved ’ tells 
us what He is from the point of view of God — He 
is God’s own unique One, the object of His supreme 
choice, who stands related to Him in the intimacy of 
appropriating love. In the parallel passage in the 
sister Epistle (Col i^^), Paul calls our Lord “the 
Son of God’s love.” This seems a combination of 
the two titles, the ‘ Son of God,’ and the ‘ Beloved ’ ; 
and bears witness to their close affinity, — ^which indeed 
is inherent in their significance. We will recall that 
in the evangelical use of ‘ the Beloved ’ it stands in 
the closest relation with ‘ Son ’ ; “ This is my Son, the 
Beloved, in whom I am well pleased.” It is only in 

since it has with it, is acc. to § 19, 5, to be left open. In any 

case no one will ground here on Grammar, but must hold a careless ( 
construction possible, and therefore in deciding the question leave 
room for material considerations.” Winer (Thayer, p. 130) had on 
Biblico-theological grounds decided in these passages for two persons — ^ 

that is, he had decided on the strength of his conception of what these 
authors would be likely to say; but he allows that grammatically they 
are flexible to the other opinion. 

31 Meyer in loc. 


The Corroboration of Paul 


247 


connection with the idea of ‘ Son,’ thus, that ‘ Beloved ’ 
comes to its rights.^^ 

On the other side, the compound names, ‘ Jesus 
Christ ’ and ‘ Christ Jesus,’ appear in Paul’s Epistles 
also in combination with designations 
which emphasize rather the human as- 
pect of our Lord’s person. We read 
of “the man Jesus Christ” (Rom 5^^), of “the man 
Christ Jesus ” ( i Tim 2^) , and somewhat more fre- 
quently we are, apart from such a combination with 
His personal name, directed to contemplate our Lord 
as a “ Man ” (dpdpcDTro ^) . In very few of these in- 
stances, it is true, is the emphasis primarily upon the 
fact of humanity. Most commonly it is thrown upon 
some point of likeness or contrast between Jesus and 
that other man, Adam (Rom i Cor i52M7,[48,49]^ 

cf. 15^% “ last Adam ”), and it is the singleness or the 
superiority of this ‘ Man ’ which is in question. But 
in a passage like i Tim 2^ “ There is one God, one 
mediator also between God and man. Himself man, 
Christ Jesus,” it is clear that the humanity of Christ 
itself is insisted upon: and there is a necessary if some- 
what unemphasized suggestion of humanity underlying 
all these passages. The lesson we must first of all 
draw from this series of passages seems, then, to be 
that neither ‘ Jesus Christ ’ nor ‘ Christ Jesus ’ is a 
designation of such supreme dignity that it could not 
suggest itself as an appropriate name for Jesus when 


32 On this designation see the full note of J. Armitage Robinson in 
his commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 1903, pp. 
229-233; and cf. Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ii. p. 501. Cf. also 
Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, pp. 3 seq., and E. Daplyn, 
in Hastings’ D. C. G., sub ‘voc. (i. pp. 188, 189). 


24B The Designations of Our Lord 

the mind of the writer was intent on precisely His 
humanity, as indeed no designation could be in the 
case of a being who was not purely divine, not even 
‘ the Lord of Glory ’ ( i Cor 2^) or ‘ God ’ itself 
(Acts 20“®). Beyond that, we learn, therefore, that 
clear and strong as was Paul’s conception of the proper 
deity of Christ, it in no wise precluded him from also 
recognizing with equal clarity and expounding with 
equal force His essential humanity. When He who 
was in the form of God took the form of a servant 
He was made in the likeness of men 
IVlfrel ^Man formed in fashion as a man 

^ (Phil 2'^’®) ; and Paul found no diffi- 

culty in so understanding, even though he also under- 
stood that the taking the form of a servant ” was not 
a supercession of “ the form of God ” but an addition 
to it : and that therefore though now made in the like- 
ness of men and formed in fashion as a man, Jesus 
remained nevertheless unbrokenly in the form of 
God ” (pTcdp^cov, verse 6, observe the tense) and able 
at will to lay hold again of His essential equality with 
God. Accordingly, therefore, the Apostle, if he rep- 
resented Jesus as of the seed of David, represented 
Him as this only on one side of His being, — that side 
which he calls “according to the flesh” (Rom i^’^) : 
if he saw in Him, to the glory of the covenant people, 
an Israelite, he saw this also in Him only “ according 
to the flesh” (Rom 9^). It cannot be denied that 
there underlies this whole mode of conception the idea 
of “ the two natures ” of Christ, on the basis of which 
alone can this duplex method of speaking of Him be 
defended or even comprehended. 

In the opening verses of the greatest of his Epistles 


The Corroboration of Paul 


249 


the Apostle brings the two sides of our Lord’s being 
The Two Sides sharply to our apprehension. Reduced 
of Christ’s to its lowest terms, what he tells us 
Being jg gjjg q£ p^jg £,e|j^g 

our Lord was the ‘ Son of David ’ and on the other 
^ side the ‘ Son of God.’ These two sides of being he 
speaks of respectively as “ according to the flesh ” and 
“according to the Spirit of holiness,” which may be 
briefly paraphrased respectively as the human and the 
divine sides. But he does not leave us to infer that 
these two sides of our Lord’s being were equally orig- 
inal to Him. On the contrary, he tells us that the 
C human side had a historical beginning, while the divine 
C side knew only an historical establishment : our Lord 
was made — came to be {yevofievoc :^ — of the seed of 
V, David according to the flesh; He was ‘designated’ 
— ^marked out as {bpcaOevro ^) — the ‘ Son of God ’ by the 
resurrection of the dead. Becoming man. He brought 
life and immortality to light, and thus showed Himself 
more than man, — nothing less than ‘ the Son of God.’ 
^CThe highest human exaltation is the Messiahship : but 
r:^His Messiahship was the lower side of His majesty. 
That He might be the Messiah He stooped from His 
prior estate of divine glory.®® Thus clearly the Apostle 
presents our Lord as essentially the ‘ Son of God,’ and 
this Sonship to God as essentially consubstantiality with 
God.®^ After precisely the same fashion, at a later 


Cf. Lightfoot on Rom i*: “The word yev6[xzvo<; Implies a prior 
existence of the Son before the Incarnation. . . . His Messiahship 
was after all only the lower aspect of His Person ( xard aapxa ). 
His personality as the Divine Word . . . was His higher aspect.” 
Cf. Sanday on Rom “It is certain that St. Paul did not hold 
that the Son of God became such by the Resurrection. The undoubted 


250 The Designations of Our Lord 

point of the same Epistle, having occasion to mention 
Christ as sprung from the seed of Israel, he at once 
pauses as if to guard himself from the imputation of 
insufficient reverence, to add the limitation, “ accord- 
ing to the flesh.” Ele was not wishing to speak of 
Christ even incidentally as merely man. And so greatly 
did his reverence for His person swell in his heart, 
that, in adjoining a designation of His higher na- 
ture, he is content with nothing lower than the 
highest conceivable. “ From whom is Christ, as ac- 
cording to the flesh,” — that Christ “ who is in His 
essential being (o ^v) none other than God over all 
blessed for ever” (9^). On the side in which He 
was not “ according to the flesh,” He was the Supreme 
God ruling over all things. 

It is, however, significant rather than copious use 
which the Apostle makes of the category of the ‘ Son 

Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor 4^ 8^, cf. Col At 

the same time he did regard the Resurrection as making a difference— 
if not in the transcendental relations of the Father to the Son (which 
lie beyond our cognizance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship 
as addressed to the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil 2^ . . .). This 
is sufficiently expressed by our word ‘ designated,’ which might perhaps 
with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts (10^2 1731). 
It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does not 
become Son; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external creation, 
but by an internal right. The Divine declaration, as it were, endorses 
and proclaims that right. . . . It is as certain that when St. Paul 

speaks of Him as 6 cdio<^ vid<^ (Rom 8^2)^ o iauroo v[o? (8^), 
he intends to cover the period of preexistence as that St. John Identi- 
fies the fxovoyevrj<^ with the preexistent Logos.” Cf. also Robinson on 
Eph. 4^® (p. 100) : When Paul is treating of the relation of our Lord 
to the Church he speaks of Him as ‘the Christ’; but when he would 
describe Him as the object of saving faith, he speaks of Him as the 
‘ Son of God ’ — “ thereby suggesting. It would seem, the thought of His 
eternal existence in relation to the Divine Father.” 


The Corroboration of Paul 25 1 

of God ’ In his presentation of the personality of 

‘Son of God’ readers.^® It Is doubtless 

at least In part due to his predilection 
for the term ‘ Lord ’ as the Trinitarian name of 
Jesus that Paul speaks of Him only some seventeen 
times as ‘ the Son.’^® In a number of these instances®’ 
there is naturally little Indication of the particular Im- 
plication of deity which It nevertheless always carries 
with It In Paul’s usage.®® In others, however, the whole 
point of the employment of the term hangs on the 
uniqueness of the relation to God which It Intimates. 
This Is the case, for Instance, when this uniqueness of 
relation is emphasized by the added term “ own ” : 
God, we are told for example (Rom 8®), sent “His 
own Son” (rov kaozou olov) “In the likeness of sinful 
flesh ” “ to condemn sin In the flesh and again God 
spared not “ His own Son ” ( rod Idioo o!ou ) but “ de- 
livered Him up for us all” (Rom 8®®). Obviously 
we are expected to estimate the greatness of the gift 


35 It is a usage which he was so far from inventing that he seems to 
have brought it with him when he entered on his career as a preacher 
of the Gospel. “ It is most significant,” remarks Knowling ( T/ie Tes- 
timony of St. Paul to Christ, p. 43), “that the first and earliest intima- 
tion which we have in Acts of St. Paul’s Christian teaching is this, that 
‘ in the synagogues,’ not to Greeks and Romans, but to Jews and prose- 
lytes, ‘he proclaimed Jesus that He is the Son of God’ (Acts 920).” 
It is already an old form of speech with him when he wrote his first 
Epistle (cf. I Thess and see Knowling, pp. 229 seq.). 

86 Rom i 3 . 4.9 510 83.29,32^ j Cot 1528, 2 Cor Ii9, Gal 1I6 220 44.6, 
Eph 4^8^ Col ii8^ 1 Thess 

87 £.g. I Thess iio, Gal ii® 220, Col Eph 413. 

88 Cf. Meyer on Rom (E. T., pp. 43, 44): “The Apostle never 
designates Christ as the oidq 6soT> otherwise (cf. Gess. v. d. Pers. 
Christi, p. 89 seq.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol., p. 309) than from the stand- 
point of the knowledge of God given him by revelation (Gal 1^6) ©f 
the metaphysical Sonship (83.32^ Gal 4^ Col ii 3 , phil 2«, al)P 


252 The Designations of Our Lord 

by the closeness of the relation indicated: It is because 
it was His own Son whom He gave that the love of 
God to us was so splendidly manifested In the gift 
of Jesus, who, we are further told, was for this 
gift “ sent forth from ” Himself (Gal 4^ i^aTriaredev) , 
This closeness of relation, amounting really to Identity, 
is somewhat oddly suggested by the argument in Rom 
^8-10^ Here we are told that scarcely for a righteous 
man would one die : but God commends His love to us 
— or as It Is strengtheningly put. His own love to us — 
by dying for us while we were yet sinners? No, — 
by Chris fs dying for us while we were sinners ! But 
how does God commend His own love for us — by 
someone else’s dying for us? Obviously the relation 
between Christ and God Is thought of as so Intimate 
that Christ’s dying Is equivalent to God Himself dy- 
ing. ^ And so, we read further that this Christ Is God’s 
Son (v. 10) and His dying for us Is to such an extent 
the pledge of God’s love that It carries with It the 
promise and potency of all good things (vv. 10, ii). 

With this emphasis on the Sonship of Christ and 
its high significance It Is a little strange that the correla- 
tive Fatherhood of God Is brought so 
‘the Father’ Immediate connection with It. 

The explanation Is doubtless again that 
Paul prefers the title ‘ Lord ’ to express our Lord’s 
Trinitarian relations. The Fatherhood of God is In 
any event not very frequently adverted to by Paul, 
and Is very seldom brought Into Immediate relation 
with Jesus. Indeed God Is expressly called the Father 
of Jesus Christ only In those few passages In which 
He is spoken of as “ the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ” (Rom 15^ 2 Cor 11% Eph [Col 


The Corroboration of Paul 253 

i^]). In a number of other passages in which God is 
called ‘the Father’ the Trinitarian relation seems in 
mind (Rom 6^ i Cor 8® I5^^ Gal I^ Eph 2^® 6^^ i 
Thess ih 2 Thess I^ i Tim i^, 2 Tim Titus i^). 
In the other instances of the application of the name of 
Father to God the reference is rather to His relation 
to us (Rom T [8^^], i Cor T, Gal [4"], 
Eph T 4", Phil i 2 2^^ 42^ Col i", I Thess T 2 
Thess [2var. lec.] Philem 3, cf. 2 Cor Eph 
3^^ 5“^ Col Ini otily three passages are 

the correlatives ‘ Son ’ and ‘ Father ’ brought together 
(i Cor 15^^ Gal 4^^ Col i^^), and in no one of these 
instances is it clear that the term ‘ Father’ is employed 
in sole reference to Jesus, the unique ‘ Son.’ In one 
of them we are told that the Father has delivered us 
out of the power of darkness and translated us into 
the Kingdom of ‘the Son of His love’ (Col i^^), 
where there seems certainly a reference to God’s 
Fatherly relation not only to Jesus ‘ the Son of His 
love ’ but also to us who are by His grace introduced 
into a similar relation to God with Christ’s own. So, 
in another, we are told that because we are sons God 
has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, 
crying, Abba, Father (Gal 4^) — where it is quite clear 
that ‘ Father ’ has relation to us, too, as the brethren of 
Christ. Even in the remaining instance, where we are 
told that at the end Christ shall deliver up the King- 
dom to God even the Father, and even ‘ the Son ’ Him- 
self shall be subjected to Him, that God may be all 
in all (i Cor 15^^), it is by no means obvious that the 
term Father may not again embrace with Christ all 
those who have been brought by Christ into the King- 
dom. We may see in all three instances that the 


/ 


254 The Designations of Our Lord 

peculiar relation of the ‘ Father ’ and ‘ Son ’ lies at 
the basis of the thought: but this peculiar relation 
does not in any of them absorb the whole thought. It 
seems to be treated by Paul as a matter too well under- 
stood to require particular insistence upon. He could 
count on his readers, when he spoke of Jesus as ‘ the 
Son of God,’ understanding without further elucidation 
that he was thereby attributing to Him a unique re- 
lation, including proper deity along with the Father, 
while our co-sonship was to be realized only in and 
through Him. 

Another method employed by Paul to indicate the 
relation of Jesus to God is the presentation of Him 
as the ‘ image of God ’ ( 2 Cor 4^, Col 

that God Is is the image of God, we are 

told, and the light of the knowledge of 
the glory of God shines in His face (2 Cor 4^). And, 
again. He is the image of the invisible God, the first- 
born of all creation (Col i^^). The meaning is that 
we may see in Christ what God is: all God’s 

glory is reflected in Him; and when we see Him we 
see the Father also. Perhaps the mere term falls short 
of expressly asserting proper deity, though it would 
certainly gain force and significance if proper deity 
were understood to be asserted. In that case it would 
suggest that Jesus Christ is just the invisible God made 
visible. And that this is its actual significance with 
Paul can scarcely be doubted when we recall that he 
does not hesitate to ascribe proper deity to Jesus, not 
only by means of the designations ‘ Lord ’ and ‘ Son 
of God,’ but by the direct application to Him of the 
name ‘ God ’ itself and that in its most enhanced form 
— ‘ God over all ’ (Rom 9^) , the ‘ Great God ’ (Titus 


255 


The Corroboration of Paul 

2^^). That Jesus Christ is intended in both instances 
by these great designations, seems, despite sustained 
efforts to deny them to Him, beyond legitimate ques- 
tion.®® The natural interpretation of the passages them- 
selves compels it : and no surprise can be felt that Paul, 
who everywhere thinks and speaks of Christ as very 
God, should occasionally call Him by the appropriate 
designation. These passages in effect supply only the 
to-be-expected expression in plain language of Paul’s 
most intimate thought of Jesus. He is always and 
everywhere to his thought just ‘ our Great God and 
Saviour,’ ‘ God over all, blessed for ever.’ 

It was thus, then, that Jesus was thought of, and 
familiarly spoken of, in the Christian communities 
Paul’s Jesus (* throughout the epoch in which the Syn- 
the Primitive ^ Optic Gospels were composed or, if we 
Jesus choose to use such misleading language, 
were compounded. The testimony of Paul’s letters 
comes from the sixth and seventh decades of the cen- 
tury; and assures us that at that time Jesus was to 
His followers a man indeed and the chosen Messiah 
who had come to redeem God’s people, but in His 
essential Being just the great God Himself. In the 
light of this testimony it is impossible to believe there 

39 On Rom 9® see Dwight, Journal of Exegetical Society, i88i, p. 22; 
and Sanday in loc. with the literature there mentioned. Dr. R. B. 
Drummond significantly writes {The Academy, March 30, 1895, p. 
273): “I must confess that I feel very strongly the grammatical diffi- 
culty of the Unitarian interpretation; but on the other hand the im- 
probability of Paul attributing not only deity, but supreme deity (irl 
TzdvTiov 0 e 6 <i^ to Christ, seems to me so great as to outweigh all 
other considerations.” On Titus 2^3 see Weiss’ note (in Meyer’s Com.), 
The case against the application of these titles to Christ may be read, 
as well as elsewhere, in Ezra Abbott, Journal of Exegetical Society, 
1881, reprinted in his Critical Essays. 


256 The Designations of Our Lord 

ever was a different conception of Jesus prevalent in 
the Church: the mark of Christians from the begin- 
ning was obviously that they looked to Jesus as their 
‘ Lord ’ and ‘ called on His name ’ in their worship. 

The general significance of the testimony of Paul, we 
may say, is universally recognized. Bousset, for ex- 
ample, when engaged in repelling the crudities of 
Kalthoff points it out with great distinctness. In Paul, 
he tells us, we have “ a witness of indubitable value 
from the bosom of the Christian community for the 
existence and the significance of the Person of Jesus.” 
“ His conversion, according to the tradition, goes back 
very nearly to the death of Jesus. His chief activity 
falls in any case in the forties and fifties. From his 
letters the historical existence of Jesus™stands out be- 
fore us in all clearness. And not merely does Paul 
presuppose this, as we perceive from these letters: he 
had intercourse with the first generation of Christians, 
who had themselves seen the Lord Jesus.” “ Whoever 
would question the existence of Jesus must erase also 
the existence of Paul, as he meets us in his letters.” 
“ With the person of Paul the person of Jesus, too, 
stands established.” Nor is it merely the existence of 
a Jesus which Paul thus substantiates for us: he rati- 
fies also the fact that the person of Jesus had for the 
faith of the first Christian community “ no indeter- 
minate but a perfectly determinate significance.”^® 
In the presence of Paul’s letters, therefore, it is im- 
possible to deny that there underlies the whole Chris- 

Was ‘wissen ou/r ‘von Jesus? 1904, pp. 17-26. This much, says 
Bousset, is certain from the general testimony of Paul : “ First, the fact 
of a historical Jesus is assured. . . . Secondly, however, it is assured 

that the Person of Jesus had for the faith of His first community no 
indefinite but a perfectly determinate significance.” 


The Corroboration of Paul 


257 


tian movement the great personality of Jesus, or that 
the primitive Christian community looked to Him as 
its founder and Lord. Is it not equally impossible to 
deny in the presence of these letters that the primitive 
Christian community looked upon this Jesus as their 
divine founder and divine Lord? 

Strange to say, Bousset draws back at this point. 
Paul’s testimony to the existence of the historical 
Jesus and to His significance to the primitive Church 
is decisive. But Paul’s testimony to the estimate 
placed upon the personality of this historical Jesus 
is not trustworthy. It is, indeed, impossible to 

doubt in the light of his testimony, that “ the 
?^rthly Jesus worked in the souls of His disciples 
(with inexpressible power” (p. 26): and that they 
nad come to believe that He had risen from the 
dead. But it does not follow that they who had com- 
panied with Him in His life shared Paul’s idea that 
He was “ essentially a heavenly being” (p. 26). The 
inconsequence here is flagrant. Paul is not writing a 
generation or two later, when the faith of the first dis- 
ciples was a matter only of memory, perhaps of fading 
memory; and when it was possible for him to represent 
it as other than it was. He is writing out of the very 
osom of this primitive community and under its very 
■^eye. His witness to the kind of Jesus this community 
believed in is just as valid and just as compelling, 
therefore, as his testimony that it believed in Jesus at 
all. In and through him the voice of the primitive 
community itself speaks, proclaiming its assured faith 
in its divine Lord. This would be true quite apart 
from the consentient witness of the Acts and the Gos- 
pels. In the presence of this consentient witness it 


258 The Designations of Our Lord 

IS impossible to contend that Paul has misrepresented 
or misconceived the faith of Christians. The same 
divine Jesus which Paul presents as the u niver sal and 
aboriginal object of Christian faith, Luke seis before 
us in Acts from the mouth of the primitive disciples 
— Peter and John and Jame^and the rest — as from 
the beginning believed on in the Church; and the 
same Luke with his companion evangelists represents 
as Himself asserting His divine dignity. The testi- 
mony of Paul mierely adds to this witness a new and 
thoroughly trustworthy voice; and renders It so much 
the more impossible to doubt that from the very be- 
ginning the entire Christian community was firmly con- 
vinced of the deity of its Lord. 

Nor can the force of this testimony be broken or 
even weakened by suggesting doubts as to the genu- 
Inaccessibility ineness of more or fewer of Paul’s let- 
to Critical ters, or raising question of a development 
Doubts of doctrine of the person of our 
Lord through their course. We have treated them all 
as genuine products of Paul’s mind and pen and as 
all of a piece: because, shortly, the facts warrant such 
a treatment of them. But the conclusion to be drawn 
from them In the matter in hand does not depend on 
so taking them. The conception of Jesus embedded in 
these letters Is the same In them all: If they are not 
all Paul’s they are all Pauline. You may discard any 
number of them you choose, therefore, as not Paul’s 
personal product: the conception of Jesus in those that 
remain Is not altered thereby. Take the extremest 
hypothesis which has ever even temporarily commanded 
the assent of any considerable number of scholars, — 
the old Tubingen theory which allowed to Paul only the 


The Corroboration of Paul 259 

four great Epistles, Romans, i and 2 Corinthians and 
Galatians.^^ In these Epistles may be found Paul’s 
entire witness to the deity of Christ. It is from them 
that we learn that Jesus Christ, while on the side of 
His flesh of the seed of David, had another side to 
His being, on which He was the Son of God (Rom 
i^’^) ; that as God’s own Son He was rich before He 
became poor by becoming of the seed of David (2 Cor 
8^) ; and that in His real nature He is not merely 
God’s Son but Himself God over all, blessed for ever 
(Rom 9^). When we add to these four great Epistles 
one after another of the others — such as Philippians, 
and I Thessalonians and Colossians, as practically all 
living critics do^*^ — and even Ephesians and Second 
Timothy, as many are willing to do — we merely add 
to the mass of the testimony, and in no respect alter 
its character or effect. These letters one and all only 
repeat, and in repeating more or less clarify, the teach- 
ing of the four chief Epistles as to the dignity of our 
Lord’s person. 

The extreme radicalism of the so-called Dutch school, the best 
representative of which is probably van Manen (or in Germany, Steck), 
may safely be neglected. 

42 Bousset, Was njuissen ‘wir, etc., pp. 19, 20, says: “It is not, however, 
at all the case that the critical theology denies to Paul all others of 
the letters ascribed to him with the exception of the four chief Epistles 
(and possibly also the Epistle to the Philippians). If the critical the- 
ology once did that, it has since corrected itself here. Thus with ever 
increasing confidence it has again accredited to Paul, together with the 
Epistle to the Philippians, i Thessalonians also, and Colossians, with 
the exception of perhaps a few verses. Lately a theologian like Jiilicher, 
whom no one can accuse of anti-critical prepossessions, has again de- 
fended the genuineness of Ephesians on striking grounds. With ever 
greater clearness and definiteness doubts are confining themselves to 
particular Epistles — 2 Thess., i Tim, and Titus.” Weinel bases his 
picture of St. Paul the Man and His Work (E. T., 1906), on Romans, 


26o 


The Designations of Our Lord 

For this same reason nothing is gained for our pres- 
ent purpose by treating the Epistles not all together, 
but in small chronologically arranged 
^Deve'lopmenf groups. ^ Slight differences may be ob- 
served, it is true, from group to group 
in modes of expression and relatively favorite forms 
of statement. But no differences can be traced in the 
conceptions which are brought to expression in these 
varying forms of statements. For example, the ruling 
designation of Christ in the Thessalonians is ‘ the 
Lord’ (22), with ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ (14) a 
somewhat close second, and ‘the Lord Jesus’ (10) 
third, while the simple ‘ Christ ’ occurs only four times. 
In Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, on the other hand, 
it is the simple ‘ Christ ’ which becomes the favorite 
designation, with ‘ Lord ’ a good second : and the same 
is true of the Epistles of the first imprisonment. In 
the Pastorals, on the other hand, while ‘ Lord ’ is still 
common, ‘ Christ,’ as in Thessalonians, falls into the 
background, and ‘ Christ Jesus ’ becomes the favorite 
designation. Variations like these, it is obvious, are 
rather interesting to those who are engaged in studying 
the literary form of the Epistles than important in 
estimating their witness to the deity of our Lord. 
Through all such variations, the product of circum- 
stance, the essential teaching of all these Epistles upon 

I and 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, and i Thess only: but he is willing to admit 
that “the vast majority of critics consider the Epistle to the Colossians 
and the short note to Philemon to be genuine,” and that some not un- 
worthy of the name of critics add Eph. and 2 Thess. (p. ix.) Wrede 
{Paulus, 1905) uses Romans, i and 2 Cor., Gal., Philip., i Thess., Col., 
Philem. ; while Wernle makes use of all except the Pastorals {Beginnings 
of Christianity, 1903). 


26 i 


The Corroboration of Paul 

the person of Christ remains the same. In them all 
alike He is the divine ‘ Lord/ whose right it is to rule: 
the ‘Son of God/ consubstantial with the Father: the 
‘ great God and Saviour ’ of sinners : ‘ God over all, 
blessed forever.’ And in their consentient testimony to 
the deity of Christ they make it clear to us that upon 
this point, at least, the whole primitive Church was 
of one unvarying mind. 


THE WITNESS OF THE CATHOLIC 
EPISTLES 


There yet remains a certain amount of corroborative 
evidence for the conclusions which we have reached, 
Catholic borne by a series of letters which have 
Epistles been preserved to us, purporting to be 
Corroborative compositions of primitive followers 
of our Lord. We use the term “purporting” not be- 
cause we have any doubt that they are all that they 
profess to be, but because their descriptions of them- 
selves have not been accepted as valid in ail critical 
circles, and because we do not consider it necessary to 
pause to vindicate their authenticity here. If their 
testimony were substantially different from that of the 
more extended documents which we have already passed 
in review, it might be required of us to validate their 
claim to give testimony to the primitive conception of 
Christ, before admitting their witness. As, however, 
they yield only corroborative testimony, we may be 
content to present it for what it seems to each indi- 
vidual to be worth. In any event it helps to make 
clear to us the absolute harmony of early Christianity 
taken in a wide sense in its lofty conception of its Lord’s 
person, and thus adds weight to what we have learned, 
from the more important documents, of the concep- 
tion current in the first age. And just in proportion 
as we recognize these letters, too, as a legacy of the 
first age, reflecting the belief of the first generation of 


The Catholic Epistles 


263 


Christians, their corroborative evidence will become 
more and more significant to us. If, as In our own 
judgment they ought to be, they are accepted at their 
face value, their testimony becomes of primary Im- 
portance, and would suffice of Itself to assure us of 
the attitude of mind our Lord’s followers cherished 
towards Him from the beginning. We shall present 
their testimony then frankly from this our own point 
of view, without stopping to argue our right to do so. 
It will thus at least be made apparent that the whole 
body of writings gathered Into what we call the New 
Testament unite In commending to us one lofty view 
of Christ’s person. For In all these letters, too, as In 
those which have already claimed our attention, Jesus 
appears fundamentally as the divine object of the 
reverential service of Christians. 

Among these letters a special Interest attaches to 
the Epistles of James and Jude, because of their au- 

James’ and thorship by kinsmen of our Lord accord- 

ChrStology flesh, who moreover did not 

High believe In Him during His earthly man- 
' Ifestatlon (Jno 7^) : to which Is added in the case of 
the Epistle of James, Its exceedingly early date (a. d. 
45 )> — ^ antecedent to that of any other of the 

canonical books. Not only does not the simple ‘ Jesus ’ 
occur In either of these Epistles or even the simple 
‘ Christ,’ but our Lord Is uniformly spoken of by des- 
ignations expressive of marked reverence. Both writers 
^describe themselves simply as “ servants ” — that Is, 
><“ bond-servants,” “ slaves,”^ — James “ of God and of 

1 We must not press, however, the ignoble connotations of “ slaves ” 
to our modern minds: entire subjection is all that is imputed. Cf. 
Mayor on Jude i. 


264 The Designations of Our Lord 

the Lord Jesus Christ” (i^), and Jude with striking 
directness simply “of Jesus Christ” (i). The ac- 
knowledgment of Jesus as their ‘ Lord ’ Implied In this 
self-designation Is emphasized In both Epistles by 
the constant employment of this title In speaking of 
Jesus. 

James speaks of our Lord by name only twice, and 
on both occasions he gives Him the full title of rever- 
ence: ‘the (or our) Lord Jesus Christ’ (i^ 2^) — 
coupling Him In the one case on equal terms with God, 
and In the other adding further epithets of divine 
dignity. Elsewhere he speaks of Him simply as ‘ the 
Lord’ (^'^*8 [141,15^2 contexts which greatly enhance 
the significance of the term. The pregnant use of ‘ the 
Name,’ absolutely, which we found current among the 
early Christians as reported In the Acts, recurs here; 
and James advises In the case of sick people that they 
be prayed over, while they are anointed with oil 
“In the Name” (5^^). The “Name” Intended Is 
clearly that of Jesus, which is thus In Christian 
usage substituted for that of Jehovah. A unique epithet, 
equally Implying the deity of the Lord, Is applied to 
Him in the exhortation, “ My brethren, hold not the 
faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
‘the^GloV’ Glory, with respect of persons” (2^). 

‘ The Glory ’ seems to stand here In ap- 
position to the name, “ our Lord Jesus Christ,” further 

2 Sven Herner, op. cit, thinks that ‘ Lord ’ is used of Jesus only at 
Mayor on thinks it probable that it is used of Jesus also at 
^[ 14 ], 15 . Herner remarks (p. 42): “The Epistle of James knows the 
expression ‘The Lord Jesus Christ’ (i^ 2^) and, therefore, uses xupto<^ 
of Christ. Since this is the case, we do not venture definitely to deny 
that Christ is meant in the expression ‘ the coming of the Lord ’ 


The Catholic Epistles 265 

defining Him in His majesty.* There is here some- 
thing more than merely the association of our Lord 
with glory, as when we are told that He had glory with 
God before the world was (Jno 17^), and after His 
humiliation on earth (though even on earth He mani- 
fested His glory to seeing eyes, Jno 2^^ 17^“) entered 
again into His glory (Lk 24“®, Jno 17“^, i Tim 3^^ Heb 
2^ cf. Mt 19^* 2 5*^ [Mk 10*'^]), and is to come again 
in this glory (Mt 16^^ 24*" 25*^ Mk 8** I3"^ Lk 9^" 
2i^\ Titus 2^*, I P 4^*). We come nearer to what is 
implied when we read of Jesus being ‘ the Lord of 
Glory’ (i Cor 2^), that is He to whom glory belongs 
as His characterizing quality; or when He is described 
to us as “the effulgence of the glory of God” (Heb 
I*). The thought of the writer seems to be fixed on 
those Old Testament passages in which Jehovah is de- 
scribed as the “ Glory”: e. g., “ For I, saith Jehovah, 
will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will 
be the Glory in the midst of her” (Zech 2^). In the 
Lord Jesus Christ, James sees the fulfillment of these 
promises: He is Jehovah come to be with His people; 
and, as He has tabernacled among them, they have 
seen His glory. He is, in a word, the Glory of God, 
the Shekinah: God manifest to men. It is thus that 
James thought and spoke of his own brother who died 
a violent and shameful death while still in His first 
youth! Surely there is a phenomenon here which may 
well waken inquiry. 

The attitude of Jude is precisely the same. He does 

although Peter’s remark on the advent of the day of God (2 P 3^2) 
makes such an ascription unlikely, and it is to be noted that in the 
preceding and following verses xupto? is used of God.” 

3 Bengel, Bassett, Mayor. 


266 The Designations of Oiir Lord 

indeed speak of Christ in the address of his Epistle 
by the simpler formal title of ‘ Jesus 
‘the Despot’ Christ,’ but in accordance with his de- 
scription of himself at that point as 
the “ slave ” of this ‘ Jesus Christ,’ he tends to multiply 
reverential titles in speaking of Him elsewhere. To 
Him our Lord is always ‘ our Lord Jesus Christ ’ 
(17, 21), ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’ (25), ‘our only 
Master {deaTTozyj^) and Lord, Jesus Christ’ (4) — a 
phrase, this last one, so strong that many commentators 
balk at it and wish to render it ‘ the only Master, viz., 
God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’^ But we cannot feel 
surprised that one who pointedly calls himself in the 
first verse of his Epistle “ slave ” of Jesus Christ, 
s^should apply the correlative of that term, “ Despotic 
Master and Lord ” to Jesus Christ, three verses later. 
No doubt “ no Jew could use ” such a phrase “ without 
thinking of the one Master in heaven ” but that is 
only evidence that this Jew thought of Jesus who was 
his ‘ Lord’ and whose “ slave ” he recognized himself 
\ as being, as, in this eminent sense, his “ Master in 
heaven” (cf. 2 P 2^). Obviously it is the testimony 
of these two Epistles that Jesus was conceived by His 
first disciples as their divine Lord and Master. 

The designations of our Lord in i Peter are notably 
simple, but none the less significant. Peter’s favorite 
designation for Him (as it is Paul’s) 
of simple ‘ Christ,’ used, ordinarily 

at least, as a proper name, though of 

See on the passage, Bigg and Mayor in loc. 

® The phrase is Mayor’s {in loc.): who notes also the use of the word 
de(T7:6(7uvot by Julius Africanus (Eus. H. E., i. 7) to denote the kins- 
folk of Jesus, and justly remarks that this implies a current earlier 
emolovment of SEfTTrornc of our Lord. 


The Catholic Epistles 267 

course not without Its appellative significance still cling- 
ing to It and In one or two Instances becoming 

prominent 2^1 ^1,10,14)^ Next to 

the simple ‘ Christ ’ Peter uses by predilection the sim- 
plest of the solemn compound names, ‘ Jesus Christ ’ 

1,2, 3, 7 , 13 2^ ^21 ^11^^ address to the Epistle he 

sets this designation In Its place in the trine formula 
of Father, Spirit and Jesus Christ, with the effect of 
suggesting the Threefold Name, that Is to say, with 
underlying Implication of the Trinity.® Similarly in 

where “ the Spirit of Christ,” that Is, most naturally, 
the Spirit which proceeds from and represents Christ, 
is spoken of as having resided In the ancient prophets, 
the preexistence of Christ Is assumed."^ Besides these 
proper names, Peter speaks of our Lord by the desig- 
nation ‘ Lord ’ 3^^ cf. 2“^ and Bigg in loc. and p. 

109) and In doing so applies an Old Testament text 
to Him in which ‘ Lord ’ stands for ‘ Jehovah,’ and 

6 Cf. Hort in loc. (pp. 17, 18) : “The three clauses of this verse be- 
yond all reasonable question set forth the operation of the Father, the 
Holy Spirit and the Son^^ respectively. Here, therefore, as in several 
Epistles of Paul (i Cor 12^-^, 2 Cor 131% Eph 44-6), there is an implicit 
reference to the Threefold Name. In no passage is there any indica- 
tion that the writer was independently working out a doctrinal scheme; 
a recognized belief or idea seems to be everywhere presupposed. How 
such an idea could arise in the mind of St. Paul or any other Apostle 
without sanction from a word of the Lord it is difficult to imagine: and 
this consideration is a sufficient answer to the doubts which have, by no 
means unnaturally, been raised whether Mt 2%^^ may not have been 
added or recast in a later generation. St. Peter, like St. Paul, associ- 
ates with the subject of each clause, if one may so speak, a distinctive 
function as towards mankind: on their relations to the Divine Unity 
he is silent.” 

Cf. Bigg in loc. (p. 108), The ^ords rb h avroT<s TTvedfxa 
Xpiazou must be accepted quite frankly. Christ was in the prophets, 
and from Him came their inspiration.” 


2 68 The Designations of Our Lord 

thus assimilates Him to the divine Being. By a com- 
bination of this great title and the solemn Messianic 
name of ‘ Jesus Christ/ he calls Jesus ‘ our Lord Jesus 
Christ’ (i^)/ and it is noticeable that it is by this 
significant title that he designates Jesus when he is 
speaking of God as not only His Father but His God 
— having reference doubtless to “ the days of His 
flesh” (Heb 5^), that is to say, to His humiliation.^ 
No other titles are applied to our Lord in this Epistle, 
except that in 2“^ He is spoken of as ‘ the Shepherd 
and Bishop of our souls,’ and at 5^’^ as ‘ Chiei, Shepherd,’ 
modes_of description in which the sot eriological rather 
than the ontological element is prominent. 

In comparison with i Peter, 2 Peter makes use of 
more elaborate designations in speaking of Christ. 
2 Peter and simple ‘ Jesus ’ not 

the Deity occur in this Epistle, but not even the 
of Our Lord simple ‘ Christ ’ : and the less complex 
compound ‘ Jesus Christ ’ occurs in its simplicity only 
once — in the formality of the address. The simple 
‘ Lord,’ on the other hand, seems to be used of Christ 
in a few cases (38-9,10,15^^10 ^ number of more or 

8Cf. Hort in loc., p. 30, who has a long, analytical discussion of it. 
9 Cf. Bigg in loc. 

Bigg on 39 : “The Lord is certainly Christ”; on 31^: “‘Our 
Lord ’ must undoubtedly signify Christ, to whom alone the doxology in 
verse 18 is addressed.” Less decidedly, Sven Herner, op. cit., pp. 44, 45: 
“ 2 Peter has some passages about which, in our opinion, no clear de- 
cision can be come to. According to 3^ seq. scornful mockers shall come 
and say, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’ It is almost the uni- 
versal judgment that the reference here is to the coming of Christ. 
Against the scorn of the mockers the Apostle suggests that a day with 
our Lord is as a thousand years (v. 8), and therefore there can be no 
talk of slackness. The Lord is not slack with His promise, but is long- 
suffering to us-ward and not willing that any should perish (v. 9). 


The Catholic Epistles 269 

less sonorous combinations of it occur: ‘Jesus our 
Lord’ (i“), ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ ‘the 

Lord and Saviour’ (3^), ‘ our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ’ 2“® 3^^), with the last of which may be 
connected the great phrase ‘ our God and Saviour, 
Jesus Christ’ (i^). Two things that are notable in 
this list of designations are the repeated use of 
‘ Saviour ’ of our Lord, and the clear note of deity 
which is struck in their ascriptions. ‘ Saviour ’ itself 
Is a divine appellation transferred to Christ to whom 
It is applied fifteen times out of the twenty-three In 
which it occurs in the New Testament. In 2 Peter 

The day of the Lord, however, will come as a thief (v. lo). In verse 
15 the course of thought in verse 9 is repeated, and the reader is ex- 
horted to account the long-suffering of the Lord salvation. This inter- 
pretation has in its favor that the expression ‘our Lord’ (v. 15) can 
be referred to Christ. Apart from Rev 4I1 (2 Tim i^) it is the 

constant rule in the N. T. and in thisTpistle (12,8.11,14,16 320 3I8) that 
the pronoun ijfimv is adjoined to xupco? only when xupw? refers 
to Christ; and already on this ground xopio<$ in v. 15 can scarcely 
designate God. The declaration in v. 8 that a day with the Lord is as a 
thousand years, causes no great difficulty, since it is no unwonted occur- 
rence in the N. T. that a statement made of Lord Jehovah is referred 
to Lord Christ, wholly apart from the circumstance that the statement 
in question is scarcely an Old Test, citation. On the other hand, our 
explanation is rendered uncertain by the expression in v. 12, ‘the 
coming of the day of God.’ Since v. 12 speaks of ‘the day of God,’ 
‘ the day of the Lord ’ is commonly explained in connection with it ; 
and as ultimate result there emerges that nothing assured can be at- 
tained concerning the meaning of 38,9,10,15^” 

Cf. Isaiah 43^1, “ I, even I, am the Lord and beside me there is 
no Saviour”; Is 43^, “The Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour,” cf. 45i5’2i 
4926 60^6 63®, Jer 14®, “O thou hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in 
time of trouble; Hos 13^, “Beside me there is no Saviour” (cf. i Sam 
10^9 14®®, 2 Sam 22®, Ps 7^® 17'^ io 62 ^). But cf. Is 19®® where the 
Lord promises to send “a Saviour and a mighty one”: and such pas- 
sages as Judges 3®*^^, where the Saviour sent is a man raised up by 
God for the purpose (cf. Judges 6®®, 2 Kings 13®, Neh 9®). The O. T. 
term for Saviour is the Hiphal participle of viz., )i ^\0 


270 The Designations of Our Lord 

it occurs five times, always of Christ, and never alone, 
but always coupled under a single article with another 
designation, and so forming a solemn formula. In 
this respect the two phrases, ‘ our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ’ 2-*^ 3^®) and ‘our God and Saviour 
Jesus Christ’ (i^) are perfectly similar and must 
stand or fall together. Not only, however, is the deity 
of our Lord openly asserted in the direct naming of 
Him here ‘ our God and Saviour.’^^ It is almost equally 
clearly asserted in the parallel phrase, ‘ our Lord and 
Sa viou r Jesus Christ.’ And it is implied in the con- 
junction of ‘ God ’ and ‘ Jesus our Lord ’ in as co- 
objects of saving knowledge (cf. 2“^ 3^^), and in 
the ascription to ‘ our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ 
of an eternal Kingdom Besides these designa- 

tions, our Lord is called by Peter, as .by Jude (4), 
our ‘ Master ’ (dsaTrori^^) with the same high impli- 
cations (2^) and the declaration of God the Father 
at the transfiguration that He is ‘ God’s ^n,’ ‘ God’s 
Beloved,’ is cited (i^^) with profound and reverential 
satisfaction.^^ 

Perhaps nothing is more notable in the designations 
of our Lord in these Epistles — James, Jude, i Peter, 
John’s Epistles ^ Peter, — than the dropping out of 
and ‘the sight of the title ‘Son of God.’ Only 

Son of God.’ ij^ single passage in 2 Peter in which 

That the passage is to be taken so is convincingly argued by 
Spitta, von Soden, and especially Bigg. Cf. Lightfoot on i Clem 2, 
where some of the patristic parallels are noted. 

The phrase “eternal Kingdom” Is found here only in the N. T. ; 
but cf. Mart. Polyc., 20, Clem. Horn., viii. 23 ; x. 25 ; xiii. 20, etc. 

1^ Spitta, von Soden, etc. (cf. Wetstein) take the ^e(T7ror7^9 here 
of God the Father; Mayor hesitates. But cf. above on Jude 4. 

15 Cf. the statement of the christology of the Epistle by Bigg, p. 235. 


271 


The Catholic Epistles 

the testimony of the Father in the transfiguration scene 
Is appealed to, is the term ‘ Son ’ applied to Jesus at 
all. The case is very different in the Johannine Epis- 
tles. Of them the application to Jesus of the title 
‘ Son of God,’ in one form or another, is preeminently 
characteristic.^® He is called. Indeed, simply ‘ Jesus ’ 
(i Jno 2^“ 4^ 4^^ 5^), and ‘Christ’ without adjunct 
(i Jno [2“^ 2 Jno 9) ; and also ‘Jesus Christ’ 

(i Jno 4^ [4^^] 5®, 2 Jno 7) ; and even ‘Jesus Christ 
the Righteous’ (i Jno 2^) and He is described in 
the great phrases ‘Word of Life’ (i Jno i^), ‘Ad- 
vocate with the Father’ (2^), ‘ Saviour of the World’ 
(4^^). But the favorite designations applied to Him 
In these Epistles emphasize His divine Sonship. The 
most common formula employed Is the simple ‘ Son * 
standing In correlation with God or the Father ( i 
Jno 4'®’'' ^9,10,11,12^ 2 Jno 9) ; but the full 

form ‘ Son of God ’ occurs also with some frequency 
( I Jno 3® 4^® ^ 5 , 12 , 13 , 20 ^ quite a variety of ex- 

panded phrases appear by Its side, such as ‘ God’s only 
begotten Son’ (i Jno 4^, cf. 5^®), ‘Jesus, God’s Son’ 
( I Jno i”^) , ‘ God’s Son, Jesus Christ ’ ( i Jno 3^^ 

16 Cf. Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 131; “The title ‘the Son’ in 
various forms is eminently characteristic of the first and second Epis- 
tles, in which it occurs 24 (or 25) times (22 or 234-2), which is more 
times than in all the Epistles of St. Paul.” 

In these two passages ‘ the Christ ’ is an appellative. 

16 The designation ‘ Lord ’ does not occur in these Epistles. Cf. 
Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 131: “It is remarkable that the title 
‘Lord’ (xbpio<;) is not found in the Epistles (not 2 Jno 3). It 
occurs in the narrative of the Gospel, and is frequent in the Apoca- 
lypse. It occurs also in all the other Epistles of the N. T. except that 
to Titus. The absence of the title may perhaps be explained by the 
general view of the relation of Christ to the believer which is given 
in the Epistles. The central thought is that of fellowship.” 


272 The Designations of Our Lord 

5-®), ‘Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father’ (2 Jno 3). 
By means of this constant designation of Jesus as ‘ the 
Son of God,’ John keeps before his readers His divine 
dignity. He is not of the world, but has come Into 
the world (5“®) upon a mission, to destroy all that is 
evil (5®) and to save the world (i'^ 5^), where- 

unto He was sent (4®’^^’^^), that all might have life 
In Him (55,12,15^ . QqJ given unto us eternal 
life and this life Is In ‘ the Son,’ so that He who hath 
‘ the Son ’ hath the life . So closely Is He asso- 

ciated with God the Father (i^ 3^^) that t o de ny Him 
is to deny the Father (2^^) and to confess Him is to 
confess the Father (2“^ 4^^) and to abide In Him Is to 
abide In the Father (2“^ cf. i^). Obviously to John 
the ‘Son of God’ Is Himself God; and what is thus 
Implied In the current use of this title Is openly de- 
clared at the close of the Epistle, where of ‘ the Son of 
God, Jesus Christ ’ It Is solemnly affirmed, “ This is 
the True God and Eternal Life” (5“^). 

In this remarkable concluding paragraph the Apostle 
Is encouraging his readers In view of the sin which Is 
In the world and which they feel to be 
‘True^God* working in themselves. “We know,” 
says he, “ that every one who has been 
begotten of God ” — that Is to say, every truly Christian 
man, who has been born of the Spirit — “ sinneth not ” : 
not because he has of himself power to preserve himself 
pure, but because “ He that was begotten of God ” — 
that Is to say, God’s own Son, Jesus Christ — “ keepeth 
him and the evil one toucheth him not.” This is but the 
Johannine way of saying what Peter says In his way when 
he assures his readers that Christians “ are guarded by 
the power of God through faith unto a salvation ready 


273 


The Catholic Epistles 

to be revealed in the last time” (i P i^). But John 
proceeds with his encouraging message. “We know,” 
he adds, “ that we are of God and the whole world 
lieth in the evil one. And we know that the Son of God 
Is come and hath given us an understanding, that we 
know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, 
In His Son Jesus Christ.” God is He that Is true; 
and what Is said Is that If we are In His Son Jesus 
Christ, we are In God. Why? Because Jesus Christ 
Himself, being His Son, Is Himself just this God that 
Is true; and therefore It is just this that the Apostle 
adds: “This Is,” he says with the emphatic de- 

monstrative , — this is the True God and Life 
Eternal” (5^^). The upshot of the whole matter, 
then. Is that those who are In Jesus Christ need have 
no fear in the midst of the temptations of earth: for 
to be In Jesus Christ Is to be In the only real God, since 
Jesus Himself Is this ‘ Real God,’ and as such ‘ Eternal 
Life.’ 

Here, then, are two new descriptive epithets applied 
to Jesus, as the ‘ Son of God.’ He is ‘ Eternal Life,’ 
— which recalls the figurative designation of Him as 
‘the Life’ In the Gospel of John (14^ cf. 

I Jno cf. I Jno 2^). And He is ‘the True,’ ‘the 
Real, God,’ the God who corresponds In every respect 
to the Idea of God, who Is what God ought to be and 
Is. There Is “ only one true God,” John quotes his 
Master as declaring (Jno 17^), to know whom is 
eternal life: and now he tells us that Jesus Christ, be- 
cause the ‘ Son ’ of this only true God, Is Himself this 
‘ True God ’ and this ‘ Eternal Llfe.’^® He then who 

For the exposition of this passage see especially Weiss (Meyer, 
1900), pp. 160, i6i. But on the clause, “He that is begotten of God,” 
see Westcott, p. 185, column 1. 


274 The Designations of Our Lord 

IS in Him is in ‘ the True God ’ and has ‘ the Eternal 
Life, — ‘ the Eternal Life ’ that was in the Father and 
has been manifested in His ‘ Son Jesus Christ,’ and is 
now declared by the Apostle in order that his readers, 
too, may enter into that fellowship which he was him- 
self enjoying “with the Father and with His Son 
Jesus Christ” (i^). The Epistles of John, also, thus 
culminate not only in calling Christ ‘ God,’ but in so 
calling Him ‘ God ’ as to throw out into emphasis 
that He is all that God is. James calls Him ‘ the 
Glory ’ : Peter ‘ the great God ’ : Paul ‘ God ov er 
all ’ : John ‘ t^ Real God.’^® It was because he so con- 
ceived Jesus as God’s unique Son (i Jno 4®) that John 
is able to speak of the fo-rgiveness of sins “ through His 
Name” (i Jno 2^“), and of faith “in His Name” 
securing eternal life (5^^, cf. 3^^), and even (3 Jno 7) 
of the whole Christian course turning on loyalty to 
‘ the Name,’ — that is, obviously, Jesus’ Name, — 
without further definition. Clearly, to him, ‘ the 
Name of Jesus ’ was the Name that is above every 
name.^^ 

Even a rapid glance like this over the designations 
applied to Christ in the Epistles written by Christ’s 
How Our Lord’s companions will suffice to 

Companions show that the estimate put upon His 
Thought of Him personality by Paul has nothing in it 
peculiar to that writer. There may meet us, as we 
pass from Epistle to Epistle, varying methods of giv- 
ing expression to the faith common to all: but it is 
common to all to look upon Jesus Christ as a divine 

20 Dr. Westcott in an additional note on i Jno 322^ p. 129 seq., gives 
a careful study of the names of our Lord in i John. Cf. also p. 189 
seq., where he discusses the term ‘ the Christ.’ 

21 Cf. Westcott, Epistles of St. John, pp. 129 and 232. 


The Catholic Epistles 


275 


person. So far as appears it did not occur to anyone in 
the primitive Christian community to put a lower es- 
timate upon His personality than that; and writer 
vies with writer only in his attempts to give his faith 
in his divine Redeemer clear and emphatic expression. 
If there was a more primitive conception than this of 
Jesus’ dignity it had died away and left no trace be- 
hind it before the Christian community found a voice 
for itself. Whether that can be conceived to have 
happened in the course of the few years which inter- 
vened between the public career and death of Jesus 
and the rise of a Christian literature, — say, in James, 
— or, say, in Paul, — or, say,- in the evangelic docu- 
ments, — each one must judge for himself. But in seek- 
ing to form an opinion on this matter, it should be 
borne in mind that there intervened only a very brief, 
period indeed between the death of Christ and the 
beginnings of Christian literature: that much of this 
literature credibly represents itself as the product of 
actual companions of our Lord: and that it was all 
written in the presence of su*ch companions, reflecli 
their opinions, and was published under their eye.JXhat 
absolutely no trace of a lower view of the person of 
Christ is discernible in any portion of this literature 
seems in these circumstances not only a valid sugges- 
tion but a convincing proof that no such lower view 
had been prevalent in the Christian community: that, 
in a word, the followers of Jesus must be supposed to 
have been heartily convinced of His deity from the very 
beginning. 


THE WITNESS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE 
HEBREWS 


The Epistle to the Hebrews enters no claim to be 
the composition of one of our Lord’s immediate follow- 
ers. Neither does it represent the thought of a period 
antedating the composition of the Epistles of Paul. 
It synchronizes in its date rather with that of the later 
half of these Epistles (c. A. D. 64). It comes to us 
like its own Melchizedek, “ without father, without 
mother, without genealogy,” bearing its own independ- 
ent witness to how Jesus was thought and spoken of 
by the Christian community in the seventh decade of 
the first Christian century; or, at least, by a special 
and very interesting group of Christians living at that 
time, made up of those Jews who had seen in Jesus the 
promised Messiah and accepted Him as their longed-for 
Redeemer. 

In the designations it applies to our Lord in gen- 
eral, this Epistle reflects, of course, the usage of the 
first age of the Church, which has al- 
ready been observed in the other Epis- 
tles: but equally of course not without 
its own peculiarities. As in the Epistles of Paul, the 
most frequently occurring of the simple designations 
is ‘Christ’ 5" 6' 911.14,24,28 JJ26) 1 'The simple 

‘ Jesus,’ however, is employed relatively much more 


1 ‘ Christ ’ is used everywhere as a proper name — even when it has 
the article: cf. Davidson, Ep. to the Heb., 73, note 1. In some passages 
the term ^ Son ’ is almost or quite a proper name : cf . Riehm 272, Da- 
vidson, loc, cit., note 2. 


Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 277 

frequently than in Paul’s letters (2^ 3^ 6^*^ 7^^ 
1019 j 22,24 1312^ . j|. occurs almost as frequently, 
indeed, as ‘ Christ.’ Neither is , however, a com- 
mon title in Hebrews (nine and eight times re- 
spectively), nor is the compound title ‘Jesus Christ,’ 
which occurs three times (10^^ 13®’^^) j while ‘Lord 
Jesus’ (13“^) and ‘Jesus the Son of God’ (4^^) each 
occurs once. The simple ‘ Lord ’ also is only occa- 
sionally applied to our Lord ( 2^ 7^“* [12^^]) ; and 
no combinations of it with other designations occur 
at all, except, as we have already intimated, the phrase 
‘ our Lord Jesus ’ is once met with ( 13^^) It is notice- 
able that in two of the three instances in which the term 
‘Lord’ is employed of Christ 2^) it is used in 
order to throw into prominence His superangelic dig- 
nity. The peculiarity of Hebrews is manifested in the 
free use it makes of the two designations, ‘ the Son ’ 

(j 2 , 5 , 5,8 ^6 ^5,8 ^ 28 )^ i o£ 1 

(4^^ 6® 7^ 10^^), and ‘the (or our) High Priest’ 
(2^^ 3^ 4^^’^^ 5^^ 6^^ 7^® 8^ 9^^) or simply ‘ Priest’ (5® 
y 3 .ii, [ 15 ], 17.21 10“^), which form respectively the 

favorite ontological and the favorite soteriological des- 
ignations of Christ in this Epistle. 

It is chiefly by means of and in connection with the 
title ‘Son’ that this Epistle (in this, like the Epistles 
^ , of John) gives expression to its concep- 

Jesus’ Humanityt^o^ our Lords person. There is 
no lack of recognition of the humanity 
of our Lord. Indeed, nowhere else in the New Testa- 

2 Cf. Sven Herner, op. cit, p. 41: “The usage by which xbpio^s is 
applied to Christ is not alien to Hebrews. We meet once (13^®) with 
the designation ‘our Lord Jesus’: and at we read ‘that the Lord 
springs from Judah.’ In ji® God is represented as saying to Christ, 
‘Xhou, Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth,’ and speaks of 


278 The Designations of Our Lord 

ment do we find the reality and the completeness of 
His humanity so fully expounded and so strongly In- 
sisted upon.® But It Is the transcendent conception of 
Christ, which looks upon Him as ‘ the Son of God,’ 
clothed with all the attributes of God, that gives Its 
whole tone to the Epistle.^ The keynote is struck in 
the very opening verses, where our Lord is set as 
‘ Son ’ in contrast not merely with the prophets, the 
greatest representatives of God on earth, but also with 
the angels, the highest of creatures. All these are 
servants of God : He is His ‘ Son,’ through whom no 
doubt God works (i“), but as one works through a 
fellow In whom He Is reduplicated; and whom He 
addresses by the great names peculiar to Himself, 

‘ God ’ ( i^) and — Its equivalent here — ‘ Lord ’ ( 2^) . 

That It is what Is called the metaphysical Sonship, 
which Is here attributed to our Lord Is obvious In 
^ itself and Is put beyond all doubt by the 

Son’ is description which Is given of Him as 

‘ Son.’^ In this description there are as- 
signed to Him divine works. In eternity and In time: 
the creation of the world and the upholding of the 

the salvation which the Lord has announced. Finally Hebrews has a 
passage where we cannot decisively pronounce whether xupto<^ refers 
to God or to Christ, . . . (12^^).” 

3 Cf. Riehm, Der Lekrhegriff des Hebrderhrlefes, 1867, p. 271. 
“ We shall see that the author emphasizes the true humanity of Jesus 
more than is found in any other N. T. book.” Accordingly, cf. §§36, 
37» 38, 39> for details. 

^ Cf. Riehm, pp. 270, 271 : “ He sees in Christ above all the Son of 
God in the eminent sense of that word.” 

^ Cf. Riehm, op. cit., p. 276 : “ There is already contained in what has 
been said the solution of the second question which we were to deal 
with in this paragraph — the question, namely, whether the uniquely 
intimate relation of Christ to God, which is designated by the name of 


Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 279 

universe. But the most striking element of it tells us 
rather what the ‘ Son ’ is than what He had done or is 
yet to do. He is, we are told, “ the effulgence of God’s 
glory and the very image of His substance ” — which 
seems to be only a rich and suggestive way of saying, 
to put it briefly, that the ‘ Son,’ as ‘ Son,’ is just God’s 
fellow. He is the repetition of God’s glory: the re- 
iteration of His substance. By the “ glory of God” 
is meant here just the divine nature itself, apprehended 
in its splendor: and by its “effulgence” is meant not 
a reflection, but, so to speak, a reduplication of it. 
The ‘ Son ’ is just God over again in the glory of His 
majesty.® Similarly by the “ substance ” of God is 
meant, not His bare essence, but His whole nature, with 
all its attributes; and by “the very image ” is meant 
a correspondence as close as that which an impression 
gives back to a seal : the ‘ Son ’ of God in no single 
trait in the least differs from God.*^ In a word, what is 

Son, is an ethico-religlous or a metaphysical one. Since this name be- 
longs to Christ on account of His pretemporal relation to God, the 
notion ‘ Son of God ’ is plainly in the first instance a metaphysical one. 
, , . An unprejudiced exposition of the relative passages must lead 
to the conclusion that according to the doctrine of the author, it is pre- 
cisely the metaphysical attributes which are attributed to Christ in 
j2 seq, that make Him the ‘ Son of God.’ ” 

®Riehm offers this illustration to clarify the notion of djzabyaaiia', 
“ Should all the light which proceeds from the sun be united again in 
a second body of light, which radiates it out again a second time, there 
would be an aizabyaffiia of the sun in the sense in which the author 
has used the word here. All the rays of the manifold divine glory 
unite again in the Son, in order in Him, joined together in a new glori- 
ous Light-Being, to present the divine glory a second time and to make 
it through this second presentation visible even to the creature” (p. 288), 
Cf. also Davidson in loc., who judiciously echoes Riehm. 

Cf. Riehm, op. cit, p. 284: “What the writer wishes is to empha- 
size in this second predicate that the nature of the Son corresponds 
precisely with the nature of the Father; that there is no trait in the 


2 8 o The Designations of Our Lord 

given to us in the ‘ Son ’ is here declared to be God as 
‘ Son ’ standing over against God as ‘ Father.’® 

It can cause no surprise, therefore, when the author 
declares that it was of the ‘ Son ’ that God® was speak- 
ing in the Psalm (45®), when He said. 
His Deity “ Thy throne, O God, is forever and 
ever.” This is only to apply directly to 
the ‘ Son ’ the name which is in the whole discussion 
implied to be His: for undoubtedly the very point 
of the whole argument is to the effect that Jesus Christ 
as the ‘ Son of God ’ stands infinitely above every crea- 
ture just because He is ‘ God ’ Himself.^® We may 
leave undecided the question whether or no the dox- 
ology at the close of the Epistle is to be referred to 
Christ, treated here as the God He is recognized 

nature of the Father which does not find itself in perfection also in the 
nature of the Son, and vice versa'' Of the whole, he says (pp. 284-5) • 
“ The Son is then, according to the doctrine of the Ep. to the Heb., an 
independently existing Divine Person, whose substance is not created 
by God, but has proceeded out of the glory of the Father’s nature; a 
Divine Person to whom in consequence the same glorious nature be- 
longs, so that every attribute of the Father repeats itself in the Son, 
and every attribute of the ^Son repeats itself in the Father; so that 
through the Son the whole nature of God is completely revealed.” 
Cf. the long “ Note on the Son ” in Davidson’s Commentary, pp. 73-79. 

® It is noticeable, however, that God is not called ‘Father’ as over 
against the ‘ Son ’ in this Epistle. Cf. Riehm, op. cit., p. 272 : “ As the 
author so frequently designates Christ as the Son of God, it is some- 
what remarkable that he only a single time and that in a citation from 
the O. T. (i®) calls God the Father of Christ.” 

^ For this is the significance of the formulas of citation to which 1* 
goes back. 

10 So Delitzsch, in loc. (E. T., p. 76) : “ The very point of the argu- 
ment for the superiority of the Son above the angels, drawn from Ps 
45'’’ and foil., lies surely in the fact that He is here twice, or at least 
once, addressed in the vocative as 6 6 e 6 <s,’* Hofmann and even 
Riehm are unnecessarily subtle here. 


28i 


Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 

throughout the Epistle as being. Certainly there is 
no reason why this author should not have ascribed 
“ eternal glory ” to the Being he had described as in 
His very nature “ the effulgence of the divine glory, 
and for that very reason it may be a matter of indif- 
ference to us whether he has done so or not. Nor Is 
much added to this picture of the divine Christ by his 
designation of Him, without qualification, as ‘ the 
Firstborn ’ (i®), or by his noticing that God has “ ap- 
pointed Him Heir of all things” (i^). ‘Firstborn’ 
and ‘ Heir ’ are little more than specially honorific ways 
of saying ‘ Son.’ God’s ‘ Firstborn ’ as such takes 
rank above all other existing beings: even all of the 
angels shall do Him reverence. God’s ‘ Firstborn ’ 
is also naturally God’s ‘ Heir,’ an heir whose Inher- 
itance embraces the universe, and whose tenure 
stretches to eternity. All these declarations are bound 
very closely together in their common relation to the 
fundamental conception of our Lord’s divine Sonship; 
and constitute Items by the mention of which the con- 
tents of the Idea of Sonship are developed. The state- 
ments of the opening verses of the Epistle seem to be 
arranged In a sort of climax by means of which the 
glory of the ' New Covenant, revealed in the ‘ Son,’ 
is more and more enhanced. The glory of the New 
Covenant Is that It has been Introduced by God the 
‘ Son ’ — that ‘ Son ’ who, despite His lowly manifesta- 

iiRiehm says (p. 286): “Still how can it occasion surprise that the 
author in 1321 praises Jesus Christ with the doxology, & i) do^a e £9 
rob? aiwva?, which, according to O. T. notions, is due to Jehovah 
only, but in the N. T. passages is also transferred to Christ? It is 
recognized by all recent commentators that the relative (w) refers to 
Christ and not to God.” So also Bleek, Lunemann, Maier, Kurtz, 
Lowrie: contra, Delitzsch: non liquet, Davidson. 


282 


The Designations of Oiir Lord 


tion on earth, has been appointed heir of all things, — 
that is. Lord of all : by whom, indeed, the worlds were 
made in the depths of eternity, — that is, who Is the 
eternal Creator of all that is : who, in fact, is in Him- 
self the effulgence of God’s glory and the impress of 
His substance — that is to say, all that God is: and by 
whom, because He is all that_God Is, .the universe Is 
held In being. 

It is particularly noticeable that at this precise point 
a mention of Christ’s propitiatory work is introduced. 

. This ‘ Son of God,’ whose dignity has 

been thus expounded, “ made purifica- 
tion of sins.” The soteriological inter- 
est is present, therefore, even in this ontological 
passage, and it is the joteriological interest, indeed, 
which gives its importance to this ontological discus- 
sion in the eyes of the writer. The soteriological titles 
by which he designates our Lord are therefore nat- 
urally as rich as the ontological ones. He is ‘ the Me- 
diator of the New Covenant ’ (8^ 9^^ 12^^) : He is the 
Ground of eternal Salvation (5^) : He is ‘the Author 
of Salvation ’ (2^^, cf. Acts 3^^ 5^^) : He is ‘ the Author 
and Perfecter of our Faith ’ ( I2“) : He is our Forerun- 
ner into that which is within the veil (6"^) He 
Is ‘ the Apostle and High Priest of our Confes- 
sion ’ (3^) : He is ‘the Great Shepherd of the Sheep’ 

12 The alrio<$ of Salvation (5^) is merely He who is the Cause or 
Producer of Salvation. The dpyr^yo'^ of Salvation cf. 12-) is 

commonly supposed to be He who has Himself trodden the pathway 
over which our feet should pass, and to be so far equivalent to the Tzpo- 
dpopo<^ (6^®). So, e. g. G. Vos In the Princeton Theological Re^ienv, 
July, 1907, p. 434, who classes apyriycx; and Tzpodpopu^ together as 
implying identification in experience, in contrast with acrco<s In which 
this is not present; but see to the contrary, Cremer, ed. 3 and subsequent 


JVitness of Epistle to the Hebrews 283 

(13-®) : and, above all (for this is a favorite concep- 
tion of this Epistle), He is our ‘ Priest’ (5^ ^3,11, [is], 17, 21 
[8“^] 10^^) or more specifically^® our ‘High Priest’ 
j ([2^^] 3^ 5^^ 6^® 7-® 8^ 9^^). All these are great 

designations: and we see at a glance that they reflect 

in their substance the high estimate put upon our 
Lord’s person as the ‘ Son of God.’ It is only because 
He is the ‘ Son of God ’ that He may be fitly described 
in His saving work by these high designations. It is 
i also at once observable that the Messanic conception 
undedies and gives form to them all. If Jesus is con- 
ceived by the writer of this Epistle in His person 

i fundamentally as the eternal ‘Son of God’; He Is 

I equally conceived in His work as fundamentally the 
Messiah appointed of God to inaugurate the new order 
of things and to bring His people safely into the ex- 
perience of the promised salvation. As ‘ Mediator of 
the New Covenant ’ He gives His life for the redemption 
of His people, establishing new relations between them 

i 13 Dr, Vos {Princeton Theological Review, July, 1907, p. 432), 

I supposes the use of the simple ‘ priest ’ to be due in general to the 
j appeal to Ps. no (510 being exceptional), while ‘High Priest’ is the 
j real preference of the author, resting on a reference in his mind to 
j the entrance of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies on the day of 

! the atonement, which prefigures what is to him the central act of Christ’s 

priestly ministry, — the entrance into Heaven. “ The Saviour is a high 
! priest because in the discharge of His ministry He enters into Heaven. 

I ... The inference lies near that the whole discussion of the subject 
' ultimately serves the purpose of showing the necessity of the 

heavenly state of existence of the Saviour.” On the other hand, 
I cf. Davidson, p. 147 : “ According to the representation of the Epistle, 

there is no difference in principle between priest and high priest”; 
j and Denney, Hastings’ B. D., iv. p. 98 a: “In the New Testament 

i it is only in the Ep. to the Hebrews that Jesus is spoken of as 

I fiiya? Ispetx^ and dp^tepeu ? — terms which are not to be distinguished 
from each other, the last two only signifying Christ’s eminence in the 
priestly character.” 


284 The Designations of Our Lord 

and God by means of His blood. As the ‘ Originator 
of Salvation,’ He tasted death for every man, receiving 
in Himself the penalties due to them, not to Him. As 
‘ Author and Perfecter of our faith ’ He endured the 
cross, despising the shamie that He might be not merely 
our example, but our Saviour. As ‘ the Great Shep- 
herd ’ He laid down His life for His sheep. As 
‘ the Apostle and High Priest ’ He is the One ap- 
pointed by God to make sacrifice of Himself for the 
sins of the people, — for every High Priest must needs 
have somewhat to offer, and this ‘ our High Priest * 
has through His own blood obtained eternal redemp- 
tion for us. 

We see that the red thread of redemption in blood 
is woven Into all the allusions to the saving work of the 
‘ Son of God.’ And we see that the chief 

^‘^Priest^^ vehicle In this Epistle for the expression 
of this high teaching Is the representation 
of our Lord’s work as priestly in Its nature, and the proc- 
lamation of Him as ‘ the great High Priest.’ The 
interest of this grows out of the circumstance that 
here at last in the New Testament the conception of 
' 'Messiah as Priest comes to Its rights. In their ab- 
sorption in the conception of Messiah as King, the 
Jew^s gave scanty hospitality to the rich suggestions of 
the Old Testament of other aspects In which His office 
and work might be contemplated. It was characteristic 
of Christianity, under the Illumination thrown back 
upon the promise by Its fulfillment, to gather these 
neglected aspects together and note their fulfillment In 
Christ. Among them was the conception of Messiah 
as a priest performing the priestly work of propitia- 
tion. There seems to be little trace of the currency of 


J-Fitness of Epistle to the Hebrews 285 

such a conception among the Jews. There is also lit- 
tle use made of it in other books of the New Testa- 
ment. But in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is given 
its full exposition; strikingly illustrated from the same 
Psalm which declares the Messiah David’s Lord not 
less than David’s son, — “ Thou art a Priest forever 
after the order of Melchizedek ” ; and made the ve- 
hicle for the inculcation of the fundamental doctrine 
of Christianity — the propitiatory death of Jesus, the 
reconciliation of God by His sacrifice of Himself, and 
His eternal intercession for His people. This is the 
grea C contribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
to the apprehension of the nature of our Lord’s 
work.^^ 

On the conception of the Messiah as Priest, cf. Stanton, The 
Je<vnsh and Christian Messiah, 1867, pp. 128-9; and esp. pp. 294 
seq.; also Hastings’ B. D., iii., 356 b: and cf. Swete, Hastings’ B. D., 
II., 406: “The Jewish Messiah, however, was chiefly the Anointed 
King; the conception of Messiah as the Prophet was less distinct, and 
that of a Christ-Priest (lepeof^ 6 Lev 4^.16 522) entirely 

wanting, until it presented itself to the writer of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews (Stanton, Jenxiish and Christian Messiah, p. 293 ff.).” On the 
idea of our Lord’s priesthood see the “ extended note on the priesthood 
of Christ ” in Davidson’s Com. on Heb., p. 146 seq.; and cf. Denney 
in Hastings’ B. D., iv,, 98 seq., and especially Vos, as above, pp. 423 
seq., who adduces the passages which show that although the term 
‘priest’ is not explicitly applied to the Messiah by the Jews, nor to 
our Lord elsewhere in the N. T., the idea is not alien to either the 
Jews or the N. T. writers. 


THE WITNESS OF THE APOCALYPSE 


The peculiarity of the Book of Revelation, as an 
Apocalypse, gives It the superficial appearance of 

A Summary Standing apart from the other books of 
View o£ Early the New Testament In a class by Itself. 

Conceptions requires little scrutiny of Its contents, 
however, to assure us that this Is true only of Its form. 
In the matter of the designations It applies to our Lord, 
for example, the cursory reader Is Impressed by their 
novelty and astonished by the richness of their sugges- 
tion; but on analyzing their content he soon discovers 
that they embody In their splendid phraseology no 
other conceptions than those he has been made familiar 
with In the other books of the New Testament. In- 
deed, there Is a sense In which It would not be untrue 
to say that the Book of Revelation, written as It was 
at the close of the first Christian century (c. A. D. 
96), gathers up Into an epitome and gives vivid, and 
we may say even emotional, expression to the whole 
century’s thought of Jesus. A certain comprehensive- 
ness Is thus Imparted to Its chrlstological allusions 
which has puzzled the critical student and been made 
by him the reproach of the book and even the occasion 
of denial to It of unity of composition.^ It Is In truth 

1 Cf. Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, i., 467: “The Old Testament 
and Jewish conceptions of the Messiah form no doubt the fundamental 
basis of the christology, though they are on every side outvied and sur- 
mounted; so that such a conglomeration of all Biblical and even 
Jewish strata of doctrine results as is wholly without example else- 


The Witness of the Apocalypse 


287 


merely a witness to the unity of the conception of 
Jesus which characterized the whole Apostolic Church, 
finding, indeed, varied expression according to the 
i^syncrasy of each writer, but remaining through all 
variety of expression essentially the same. 

The long list of designations in which this concep- 
tion of Jesus is at least in part embodied in the Book 
of Revelation may be perhaps somewhat 
"^Designatirns”^ '■oughly divided into two classes. We 
say roughly divided because the sepa- 
rating line is an uncertain one and the two classes melt 
insensibly into one another. These two classes may 
perhaps equally roughly be discriminated as simple and 
descriptive designations: simple designations, that is 
to say, names merely designating our Lord, though, of 
course, no one of these names merely designates our 
Lord, but all have more or less of a descriptive ele- 
ment; and descriptive designations, that is to say, des- 
ignations which are more or less elaborate descriptions 
of His nature and functions. 

The simple designations are, in accordance with the 
general character of the book as a symbolical Apoca- 
lypse, both few and infrequently em- 
Simple ployed.^ In the formal opening of the 
Designations have — as in the formal open- 


where in the N. T., and has become one of the chief occasions for the 
current hypotheses which attack the unity of the composition.” He 
quotes Bousset as speaking of the christology of the Apocalypse as a 
“confused conglomeration of the most diverse conceptions” (Meyer’s 
Com. on Re^., 161). Cf. R. Palmer, The Dra?na of the Apocalypse, p. 
105, who complains that “ the point of view of the seer is continually 
changing,” so that it is impossible to obtain a unitary doctrine from 
him. 

2 Cf. Holtzmann’s enumeration, Theologie des N. T., i, 467, and 
Gebhardt. Doctrine of the Apocalypse, p. 77. 


288 


The Designations of Our Lord 

ing of several others of the New Testament books 
(Mt Mk ih Jno Rom ih i Cor ih Gal 
I P 2 Pih [Jno 2 Jno 3], Jude i) — the full cere- 
monious name, ‘Jesus Christ’ In the formal 

closing verses of the book the place of this solemn des- 
ignation is taken by the somewhat more descriptive 
designation ‘the Lord Jesus’ (22“^’“h cf. however, v. 
r. ‘Jesus Christ’ in verse 21). The simple ‘Jesus’ 
occurs more frequently ( 12^^ 14^“ 17® 1^10,10 20^ 
22^^), and, if we may be allowed the expression, ap- 
pears to be the more emotional, as distinguished from 
the more formal, simple designation of our Lord in 
this book. The simple ‘ Christ ’ occurs only twice 
(20^’^^), although in what we may call its more descrip- 
tive form — that is in its appellative use — ‘ the Lord’s 
Christ (Anointed),’ ‘God’s Christ (Anointed),’ — it 
/Occurs twice more (at 12^^^). The term ‘Lord’ 
seems to be a designation of Christ at 14^^: and His 
Lordship is of course copiously recognized elsewhere, 
not merely by implication as in the designation of a 
day as “ the Lord’s day ” ( i^^) but in a series of elab- 
orately descriptive designations the simplest of which 
is perhaps ‘ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords ’ 
(19^^), varied to ‘the Lord of Lords and King of 
Kings ’ (17^^, cf. 2^’^^ 3”^ 5^). Of the more common 
Messianic designations, besides the fundamental ‘ the 
Christ’ (ii^^ 12^^^; and in compounds and 

‘ Christ ’ ( 20^’^) , only ‘ the Son of God ’ occurs, and that 
but once (2^^, cf. ‘ my Father,’ 2“^ 3^’“L ‘ His God and 
Father,’ ‘my God,’ 3“’^“), and accompanied by 

3 Such a phrase as ^ xoptaxij ijfxipa could not have been framed 
unless Jesus had been to His followers ‘the Lord’ by way of eminence. 
Cf. I Cor ‘the Lord’s Supper.’ 


The JFitness of the Apocalypse 289 

descriptive adjuncts which give It its very highest 
connotation. Our Lord’s own ‘ Son of Man,’ how- 
ever, has Its echo In the description of Jesus In two 
visions as “ one like unto a Son of Man ” 14^^) : 

and by the preservation In this designation of the “ like 
unto ” of the Danielle vision (7^^) — strengthened from 
the simple (he to the emphatic ofiocov ^ — the seer man- 
ages to assert with great strength the essential deity of 
our Lord. He was not a son of man but only “ like 
unto a son of man.”^ He even enhances this Im- 
plication by Interweaving Into the description traits 
drawn not only from Daniel’s “ Son of Man,” but also 
from his “ Ancient of Days.”^ The Johannine desig- 
nation of ‘ the Word of God ’ ( also occurs as the 
name of the conquering Christ, apparently with the 
Implication that In Jesus Is manifested the definitive 
^revelation of God In which He addresses Himself to 
.man with Irresistible power.® Probably the “man 
child” (or “son”) of 12^ (cf. I2^^ “the man”) 
tiltimately refers to our Lord: and If so It also Is 
doubtless Messianic, taking hold at once of Is 66^ and 
Psalm 2^ possibly even of Gen 4L In any event the 
allusion is to the conquest of evil by this Son of the 
woman. 

4 Cf. Gebhardt, Doctrine of the Apocalypse, pp. 78-9: “ De Wette and 
Hengstenberg find in the expression the superhuman glory of Christ; 
for, as De Wette remarks, to affirm of a man that he is like a man is 
to say nothing; or as Hengstenberg expresses it, if Christ only resem- 
bles a Son of Man, there must be another side of His nature which 
surpasses the human.” 

5 Cf. Holtzmann, op. cit., pp. 467-8: “The Danielic Son of Man, 
I ?, 13 1 ^ 14 ^ and even the Danielic ‘ Ancient of Days,’ shine through.” 

6 The vision is the vision of the spiritual conquest of the world, and 
in such a vision the designation of our Lord as ‘the Word of God’ is 
peculiarly appropriate. 


290 The Designations of Our Lord 

The more elaborate descriptive titles which are ap- 
plied to our Lord embody the same circle of ideas as 
are more briefly suggested by the sim- 

Descnptive designations; and only more viv- 

Designations f „ , . , , 1 • 

idly and richly express their contents. 

Some of these have for their burden the saving activi- 
ties of our Lord and may therefore fitly be called 
soteriological. A good example of these is provided 
by the direct description of Llim as “ Him that loved 
us and loosed us from our sins by His blood” (i^). 
But the most striking and at the same time the most 
frequently employed descriptive designation of this 
class is that which calls Him “ the Lamb that hath 
been slain” (5^- I3^ cf. 7^^), or more commonly 
simply “ the Lamb ” without express but always with 
implied reference to the actual sacrifice 6 ^’^® 

^9,10,14,17 j 2 ^^ j ^1,4,4,10 jyl4 j ^7,9 2 i9>l^>22,27 2 2^’^).’’^ 

Indeed, we understate the matter when we say this is 
the most frequently employed descriptive designation 
of Christ of its class. It is in fact the most frequently 
employed designation of Jesus of any 

‘The Lamb* kind, and must be looked upon as em- 
bodying the seer’s favorite mode of 
conceiving of Jesus and His work. He even uses it 
in such a manner as to suggest that it had acquired for 

The word is which is used 26 times of Christ in Revela- 

tion (in 13I1 it is otherwise used). It is found elsewhere in the N. T. 
only at Jno 21^® (plural), where it represents Christ’s followers. 
Jesus is called ‘ Lamb ’ in Jno i 29 ,s 6 ^ 332^ j p 

nowhere else except in Rev. (^apviovy In the whole N. T. ‘lamb ’ 
(whether dp.v 6 ? or dpviov) occurs only of Christ except at Jno 21 
^dpvia) [cf. Lk lo® (dp-^v)~\. On the use of the diminutive dpviov 
of Jesus see A. B. Grosart in the Expos. Times, ii. p. 57, and cf. Geb- 
hardt, p. 112; Swete, p. 77. 


The Witness of the Apocalypse 291 

him much the status of a proper name, and suggested 
Itself as a designation of Jesus even when the mind 
of the writer was dwelling on other aspects of His 
work than that most closely symbolized by this title.® 
There could be no more striking Indication of the high 
significance the writer attached to the sacrificial death 
of Christ, and to the dominance of the fifty-third chap- 
ter of Isaiah In the framing of his Messianic concep- 
tions; matters which are otherwise copiously Illustrated 
by his language.® Other prevailingly soterlological des- 
ignations advert especially to our Lord’s resurrection, — 
such as that by which He Is spoken of as ‘ the First- 
born of the Dead’ (i^) ; and others still to His trust- 
worthiness, such as when He Is called ‘ the Faithful 
and True’ (19^^, or ‘the Faithful Witness’ (i^), 
and more elaborately ‘ the Amen, the Faithful and 
True Witness, the beginning of the creation of God ’ 
(3^^) ; or again, ‘ He that Is holy. He that Is true, 

® So Hoekstra, De Christologie der Apocalypse, in the Theologisck 
Tijdschrift, iii., 1869, p. 4; and even Gebhardt, Doctrine of the Apoca- 
lypse, 1873, pp. 113, 114: “The seer in the course of his representa- 
tion unquestionably often uses the expression ‘ the lamb ’ without any 
special signification, but only as a standing designation of Christ 
(cf. 171^).” 

9 Cf. Holtzmann, op. cit., i., 472: “This 29-[27-] times occurring 
Lamb, the most individual christological conception of the author (see 
Vol. II., 478) refers back most probably to Is 53'^.” Perhaps we ought 
to say it refers back proximately to Jno i2», and forms one of those 
subtle indications that this book is the composition of John — who was 
one of the two disciples (Jno to whom the Baptist pointed out 

Jesus as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” 
It has been too little observed to what an extent John (both in Gospel 
and Epistles and in the Apocalypse) was influenced in his conceptions by 
the Baptist. The thesis might be defended that the Baptist was his first 
and most impressive teacher in theology. In any event it is important 
to observe such hints of an underlying unity between Gospel and 
Apocalypse. 


292 The Designations of Our Lord 

He that hath the keys of David, He that openeth and 
none shall shut and that shutteth and none shall open ’ 

(3^). 

The transition from these soterlological designations 
to those which are more purely honorific, or perhaps 
we might better say, ontological. Is very 

Des“™nlfons gradual, or indeed insensible: and 

nothing Is more characteristic of the 
book than the sharp contrast Into which designations 
of the two classes are brought by their Immediate con- 
junction. Thus, for example, we read: “And I 
wept much, because no one was found to open the 
book, . . . and one of the elders salth unto me, 
Weep not, behold the Lion that Is of the tribe of 
Judah . . . hath overcome to open the book. . . . 
And I saw In the midst of the throne, and of the four 
living creatures, and In the midst of the elders, a Lamb 
standing as though It had been slain, . . . and 

he came and taketh the book ...” (5^®®'^ ). 
There Is no question of mixed metaphors here: there 
Is only question of bringing together In Jesus by the 
most varied of symbols all the aspects of the Mes- 
sianic prediction, and the exhibition of these all as 
finding their fulfillment In Him. All these designations 
are distinctly Messianic In their ground tone, and the 
Messianic ground tone Is taken from all forms 
of the Messianic expectation, but perhaps prevail- 
ingly from that associated In the Gospels with the 
title of ‘ Son of Man,’ to which there Is manifest 
allusion even In passages In which there Is not only 
no adduction of that title, but no direct designa- 
tion of our Lord from that point of view (i^)- The 
great opening description of our Lord as ‘ Jesus 


The Witness of the Apocalypse 293 

Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the 
dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth’ (i^) 
unites already nearly all forms of designating Him 
employed In the book. Here Is the simple name, the 
recognition of His dependableness, and the ascription 
to Him of the Inauguration of life and of universal 
sovereignty. The Messianic ground tone is especially 
prominent In such designations as those which call 
Him ‘ the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of 
David’ (5^), or ‘the Root and the Offspring of 
E^avld, the bright, the morning Star ’ (22^®) , but passes 
more Into the background In such as those which speak 
of Him as ‘ the Son of God who hath eyes like a flame 
of fire and His feet are like unto burnished brass ’ 
(2^®), or ‘He that holdeth the seven stars In His 
right hand. He that walketh In the midst of the seven 
golden candlesticks ’ (2^), or ‘ He that hath the seven 
spirits of God and the seven stars’ (3^). It Is His 
Messianic function of judgment which Is thrown for- 
ward In the description of Him as ‘ He that hath the 
sharp two-edged sword’ (2^^) ; ‘He that Is the ruler 
of the kings of the earth’ (i^), ‘whose eyes are like 
a flame of fire’ (2^®), and who, since His dominion 
is universal. Is ‘ the Lord of Lords and King of Kings ’ 
(17^^ 19^®) — although a greater than a Messiah Is 
obviously here. The climax Is attained In the descrip- 
tion of Him as ‘ the First and the Last, which was dead 
and lived again ’ (2^), ‘ the First and the Last, and the 
Living One’ (i^®), ‘the Alpha and Omega, the First 
and the Last, the Beginning and the End’ (22^^), in 
whose hands are the destinies of men 


Cf. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O, T., p. 165, on the 
high meaning of these phrases here applied to Jesus: “‘The first and 


294 Designations of Our Lord 

It seems scarcely necessary to draw out In detail the 
wealth of implication of deity which these designations 
contain. The Apocalypse does not 
apply to our Lord directly the simple 
designation Lod. but everything 
short of that Is done to emphasize the seer’s estimate 
of Him as a divine Being clothed with all the divine 
attributes. This Is generally allowed; and those who 
are set upon having the Apocalypse witness to a lower 
chrlstology commonly content themselves with the re- 
mark that Its language must not be taken at Its face 
value. Baur, for example, contends that although the 
highest predicates are ascribed to Jesus, they are “ only 
names borne outwardly by Him, and are not associated 
with His person In any Inner unity of nature”; that 

last’ (Is 44®) is a surprising generalization for a comparatively early 
time. It is not a mere statement that Jehovah was from the beginning 
and will be at the end. It is a name indicating His relation to history 
and the life of men. He initiates it, and He winds it up. And He is 
present in all its movements. ‘Since it was, there am I’ (48I®). Even 
the last book in the N. T. has nothing loftier to say of Jehovah than 
that He is ‘ the first and the last ’ : ‘ I am the Alpha and the Omega, the 
first and the last, saith the Lord, the Almighty’ (Rev i®).” It is by 
these lofty designations that Jesus is spoken of in the Apocalypse. Cf. 
Swete on the passage. 

Cf. the brief but instructive sketch of the christology of the Apoca- 
lypse in Swete, pp. civ. seq., especially the summary of the relations of 
Christ to God on p. clvii.: “ (i) He has the prerogatives of God. He 
searches men’s hearts (2^3) ; He can kill or restore life (i^® 2^3) ; He 
receives a worship which is rendered without distinction to God (5^®) ; 
His priests are also priests of God (20®) ; He occupies one throne with 
God (22^’®), and shares one sovereignty (ii^®). (2) Christ receives 

the titles of God. He is the Living One (i^^), the Holy and True 
(3"^), the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and 
the End (22^®). Passages which in the O. T. relate to God are 

without hesitation applied to Christ, e.g. Deut (i7^^)> Prov 3'® 


The Witness of the Apocalypse 295 

“ inner connection between the divine predicates and 
the historical individual who bears them ” is lackingd^ 
In point of fact these divine predicates are there; and 
whether the seer means anything by them may be safely 
left to the reader to decide. Jesus is represented as 
emphatically as God Himself, as the living one 
eternal omniscient 2^® 19^^) » the searcher 

of the reins and hearts (2^^), in whose hands 
are the keys of death and hell If in 

reminiscence of Is 44^ where the Lord, the King 
of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, de- 
clares of Himself: “ I am the first and the last: and 
beside me there is no God,” — God is represented as 
announcing: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the 
beginning and the end” (21^ cf. i®), Jesus equally 
(despite the strong monotheistic assertion of the orig- 
inal passage) is represented as announcing: “ I am the 
first and the last, and the living one” cf. 2®), 

“ I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the 

(319), Dan 7^ Zech 4^0 (s®)- Thus the writer seems either to 

coordinate or to identify Christ with God. Yet he is certainly not 
conscious of any tendency to ditheism, for his book is rigidly mono- 
theistic; nor, on the other hand, is he guilty of confusing the two 
Persons.” 

^2 So also substantially Kostlin and Hoekstra. See the refutation in 
Gebhardt, pp. 86 seq. Bousset (Meyer’s Com. on Apoc.), while repre- 
senting the christology of the book as “ a confused conglomeration of 
the most diverse conceptions” (280), has yet to recognize that it is (in 
some of its elements at least) “ apparently the most advanced in the 
whole N. T.” (280). He says: “We have in it the faith of a layman 
unaffected by any theological reflection, which with heedless naivete 
simply identifies Christ in His predicates and attributes with God, 
while on the other side it calmly incorporates also wholly archaic 
elements.” 


296 The Designations of Our Lord 

last, the beginning and the end” (22^^) d® Indeed, in 
the opening address we have one of 

Background those Trinitarian arrangements which 
betray the real underlying conception 
of deity in others, too, of the New Testament writers: 
“ Grace to you and peace from Him which is and which 
w^as and which is to come ” — that is Jehovah, of which 
this is an analysis, — “ and from the seven Spirits ” — 
that is the Holy Spirit set forth in His divine com- 
pleteness, — “ and from Jesus Christ who is the faith- 
ful witness, the firstborn from the dead and the ruler 
of the kings of the earth” In the presence 

of such pervasive and universally recognized ascrip- 
tions of deity to our Lord we need not stop to ex- 
pound the significance of such designations as that 
by which He is called not merely the ‘ Amen^^ and the 
faithful and true witness,’ but ‘ the principle of the 

13 Dr. B. W. Bacon, Hastings’ D. C. G., L, 43 endeavors to ex- 
pound the application of these phrases to Christ as an eschatologico- 
soteriological adaptation, in which the metaphysical implication is lost: 
in them Christ would say “I am the primary object and ultimate ful- 
fillment of God’s promise” (43). What is in its application to God, 
therefore, “ a solemn designation of Divinity ” becomes when trans- 
ferred to Christ only an assertion that in Him the promised redemption 
is accomplished: “It is only in the eschatological sense that Christ be- 
comes the original object and ultimate fulfillment of the Divine pur- 
poses and promises, ‘the Yea and Amen,’ ‘the Alpha and the Omega, 
the first and the last, the beginning and the end’” (p. 45). The arti- 
ficiality and inadequacy of this construction is manifest. Cf. on the 
other hand A. E. Ross, art. First and Last,’’ Hastings’ D. C. G., i., 
595 who frankly allows “that the title ‘the First and the Last’ as 
applied to Christ in Rev. recalls and attributes to Him all that the O. T. 
writers had realized of the nature of God” (596 a). Cf. Dr. David- 
son, as above, p. 318, note, on the essential significance of the phrases. 

On the ‘ Amen ’ as a designation of our Lord, cf. J. S. Clemens, 
Hastings’ D. C. G., I., 51 a., and J. Massie, Hastings’ D. B., i., 81 a. 


The JF it ness of the Apocalypse 297 

creation of God’ — that is to say, the active 

agent in creating all that God creates. It Is abundantly 
clear that the Christ of the Apocalypse Is a divine 
person. 

Cf. Gebhardt, p. 93, and Dusterdieck, in loc. 

1® Cf. T. C. Porter in Hastings’ B. D., iv., 263 a: “While angels 
are classed with men, Christ is classed with God ; and various titles 
and expressions carry us beyond not only the Messianic but also the 
angelogical speculations of Judaism. He is once called ‘the Son of 
God’ (2I®, but see also 2-1 3®»“i, cf. 1® 14!) ; once ‘the beginning of 
the creation of God’ (31^), as only the Divine Wisdom is called in 
O. T. (Prov 8-2), and as Christ is called only by St. Paul in the N. T. 
(Col ii 5 ). He is called once also the ‘Word of God’ (19I®), and 
even this Johannine (Hellenistic) title is surpassed by the title of eter- 
nity, ‘the First and the Last’ (iii 2® 22I®).” Cf. Stanton, The Jenvish 
and Christian Messiah, p. 163. 


THE ISSUE OF THE INVESTIGATION 


We have now passed in review the whole body of 
designations which are applied to our Lord in the 
Fundamental pages of the New Testament. We 
^he'chrS^ cannot fail to be impressed with the 
Community variety of these designations and the 
richness of their suggestion. It would be a pleasant 
task to develop all their implications. This would, 
however, take us too far afield for our present pur- 
pose. Let it suffice to observe that at bottom they 
seem to be charged with three specific convictions on 
the part of the Christian community, to which they 
give endlessly repeated and endlessly varied expres- 
sion. Christ is the Messiah; Christ is our Redeemer; 
Christ is God: these are the great asseverations which 
are especially embodied in them. All three are already 
summed up in the angelic announcement which was 
made to the shepherds at His birth : “ I bring you 
good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the 
people: for there is born to you this day in the city 
of David the Saviour, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk 
2^^). The whole New Testament may be said to be 
an exposition and enforcement of that announcement: 
and in the course of this exposition and enforcement it 
teaches us many things. Above all, it places beyond 
dispute the main fact with which we have now to deal, 
this fact, to wit, that the whole Christian community. 


The Issue of the Investigation 299 

and that from the very beginning, was firmly convinced 
that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh. 

There really can be found no place for doubt of this 
fact. But upon its emergence as an indubitable fact 
This Conviction it becomes plain that it is freighted with 
OuTLord’? significance. The fact that the 

Teaching whole Christian community from the 
very beginning held, as to its fundamental principle, 
to the deity of its founder, is a very remarkable fact, 
and surely needs accounting for. 'And it will be found 
difficult to impossibility adequately to account for it 
except upon the assumption that the founder of Chris- 
tianity really was a divine person. This universal 
and uniform conviction of the deity of Christ in the 
primitive Christian body in a word implies the actual 
Qdeity of Christ, as its presupposition. It cannot be 
supposed that the whole body of the first Christians 
firmly believed in the deity of their Master without 
evidence — ^without much evidence — without convincing 
evidence. The primary item of this evidence was no 
(^doubt our Lord’s own self-assertion: and this is a 
fact of the first importance which is immediately given 
in the fact of the universal and uniform belief in our 
'jtLord’s deity which characterized the first age of the 
Church. That belief cannot possibly be accounted for 
except on the supposition that it was founded in our 
Lord’s teaching. As certain as it is then that the primi- 
tive Christians were firmly and without exception con- 
vinced of our Lord’s deity, so certain is it that our 
Lord — as indeed He is represented to have done in the 
uniform tradition — asserted Himself to be a divine 
person. And now we must go further. As certain- 
as it is that these two things are true, that the whole 


300 The Designations of Our Lord 

Christian community believed their Lord to be divine 
and that Jesus taught that He was divine, so certain 
it is that neither of them could be true if it were not 
true that our Lord was divine. 

We have already remarked that the Christian com- 
munity cannot be supposed to have formed and im- 
And Something iT^O'^^bly fixed in their hearts the con- 
More than His viction that their Lord was divine 
Teaching without evidence — much evidence — 
convincing evidence. We have also pointed out that 
the primary item of this evidence was our Lord’s own 
assertion. But there certainly must have been more 
evidence than our Lord’s bare assertion. Men do not 
without ado believe everyone who announces himself 
to be God, upon the bald announcement alone. There 
mlist have been attendant circumstances which sup- 
ported the announcement and gave it verisimilitude, — ■ 
nay, cogency — or it would not have had such power 
over men. Our Lord’s life, His teachings. His char- 
acter, must have been consonant with it. His deeds 
as well as His words must have borne Him witness. 
The credit accorded to His assertion is the best possible 
evidence that such was the case. We can understand 
how His followers could believe Him divine, if in 
point of fact He not only asserted Himself to be 
divine but lived as became a God, taught as befitted a 
divine Instructor, in all His conversation in the world 
manifested a perfection such as obviously was not 
human: and if dying. He rose again from the dead. 
If He did none of these things can their firm and pas- 
sionate faith in His deity be explained? 

Possibly we do not always fully realize the nature 
of the issue here brought before us. Here is a young 


The Issue of the Investigation 301 

man scarcely thirty-three years of age, emerged from 
obscurity only for the brief space of three years, living 

Including during those years under the scorn of the 

Something world, which grew steadily in intensity 
Very Conclusive ^nd finally passed into hatred, and dying 
at the end the death of a malefactor : but leaving behind 
Him the germs of a world-wide community, the spring 
of whose vitality is the firm conviction that He was 
God manifest in the flesh. If anything human is ob- 
vious it is obvious that this conviction was not formed 
and fixed without evidence for it of the most convinc- 
ing kind. The account His followers themselves gave 
of the matter is that their faith was grounded not 
merely in His assertions, nor merely in the impression 
His personality made upon them in conjunction with 
His claims, — but specifically in a series of divine deeds, 
cujpiinating in His ri^ng from the dead, setting its 
seal upon His claims and the impression made by His 
personality. This is the account of the great place the 
Resurrection of Christ takes in the Apostolic propa- 
ganda. It is the seal set by heaven upon the truth of 
His deity as proclaimed in His teaching. It is safe 
to say that apart from evidence so convincing the high 
claims of Jesus could not have been met with such firm 
and unquestioning faith by His followers. This very 
faith becomes thus a proof of the truth of His claims.^ 

1 Cf. Stanton, The Je^vish and the Christian Messiah, pp. 253, 253: 
“ It appears to me that without the cooperation of the two main causes 
here indicated, first the impression made by the personality of Jesus, 
His works and His claims for Himself, before His crucifixion, and 
then the evidence which convinced His disciples of His resurrection, 
faith in Him as a supernatural Christ could not have been established 
so universally from the first.” 


302 The Designations of Our Lord 

And so, in fact, is the mere fact that He made these 
claims. We have seen that the fact that He made 
Not Supposable these claims is not only asserted by all 
that Jesus made His followers, but is safeguarded by 
False Claims their faith in His deity, which were in- 
explicable without it. But it is evident that He could 
not have made such a claim unless what He claimed 
was true. We are not absurdly arguing that the claim 
to be God is one which cannot be made by a human 
being untruly. What is it that the folly or wickedness 
of men will not compass? But why should we absurdly 
argue that Jesus may be supposed to have done what- 
ever we think within the compass of human__folly or 
human wickedness? Was Jesus the silliest of men; 
or the most wicked? The point is not that no man 
could make such a claim untruly, but that Jesus could 
not make it untruly! Many men there have been, 
and are, who might do so; some have done so — 
men who were vilely impostors or wildly in^ne. Is 
Jesus to be classed with these men? Are we to ask 
with Renan how far Jesus may be supposed to have 
gone in assuming a role He knew He had no claim 
upon? Are we to ask, with Oscar Holtzmann, was 
Jesus a fanatic? These are the alternatives: grossly 
deceiving; grossly deceived; or else neither deceiving 
nor deceived, but speaking the words of soberness and 
truth. He, the flower of human sanity; He, the ripe 
fruit of human perfection; can He be supposed to 
have announced to His followers that He was above all 
angels, abode continually in equal intercourse with the 
Father, shared with Him in the ineffable Name — and 
it not be true? As Dr. Gwatkin* crisply puts it, 

^The Kno<v:ledge of God, i., 120. 


The Issue of the Investigation 303 

“ There is a tremendous dilemma here which must be 
faced: assuming that the tremendous claim ascribed 
to Him is false, one would think it must have disor- 
dered His life with insanity if He made it Himself, 
and the accounts of His life if others invented it.” 
This witness is true. Neither Jesus nor His follow- 
ers could have invented the claims to deity which Jesus 
is reported to have made for Himself: for the truth 
of these claims is needed to account both for Jesus and 
for His followers. 

We have no intention of stopping here to argue these 
points; if indeed to establish them they need more 
The Issue the argument than their mere statement. It 

Evid*nce"o£ necessary, however, to suggest 

the Source them in order to indicate the gain we 
register upon ascertaining, as we have ascertained, that 
the entire Christian community from the very first was 
firmly convinced of the deity of its Lord. That fact 
established, it carries with it the truth of the convic- 
tion. For the conviction, in the circumstances in which 
it was formed and held, cannot be accounted for save 
on the assumption of the existence of compelling evi- 
dence for it, and this compelling evidence must include 
in it the claims of Jesus, which in turn cannot be 
accounted for save on the assumption of their truth. 
Grant that Jesus was really God, in a word, and every- 
thing falls orderly into its place. Deny it, and you 
have a Jesus and a Christianity on your hands both 
equally unaccountable. And that is as much as to say 
that the ultimate proof of the deity of Christ is just 
— Jesus and Christianity. If Christ were not God, 
we should have a very different Jesus and a very dif- 
ferent Christianity. And that is the reason that mod- 


304 The Designations of Our Lord 

ern unbelief bends all its energies in a vain effort to 
abolish the historical Jesus and to destroy historical 
Christianity. Its instinct is right : but its task is hope- 
less. We need the Jesus of history to account for the 
Christianity of history. And we need both the Jesus of 
history and the Christianity of history to account for the 
history of the world. The history of the world is the 
^ product of the precise Christianity which has actually 
existed, and this Christianity is the product of the pre- 
cise Jesus which actually was. To be rid of this Jesus 
we must be rid of this Christianity, and to be rid of 
this Christianity we must be rid of the world-history 
which has grown out of it. We must have the Chris- 
tianity of history and the Jesus of history, or we leave 
the world that exists, and as it exists, unaccounted for. 
But so long as we have either the Jesus of history or the 
Christianity of history we shall have a divine Jesus. 


INDEXES 


i 


These Indexes have been, with great kindness, prepared by 
the Rev. Dr. John H. Kerr, Secretary of the American Tract ) 
Society. Thanks are due to Dr. Kerr also for whatever ac- | 
curacy has been attained in printing the text of the book. | 

! 

ij 




INDEXES 


I. Index of the Designations of our Lord. 

Advocate (the), 193; See Paraclete. 

Advocate with the Father, 220. 

Alpha and Omega (the), 292, 295. 

Amen (the), the Faithful and True Witness, 290, 295. 

Apostle (the) and High Priest of our Confession, 281. 

Author ( apyriy 6 <i ) of Life (the), 217; — of Salvation, 281; — • 
and Perfecter of our Faith, 281; — and Saviour, 217. 
See Captain, Prince. 

Beginning (the) and the End, 292, 295. 

Beginning (the) of the Creation of God, 290. 

Beloved (the), 13, 22, 83, 117, 126, 128, 150, 245, 269. 

Bishop (the) of our Souls, 267. 

Bread (the) of God, 193. 

Bridegroom (the), 12, 13, 45, 50, 84, 9L 123, 126, 150, 194. 
Captain of Salvation (the) 281. See Author, Prince. 

Chosen One (the) of God, 113, 117, 126 [192]. See Elect 
(the) of God. 

Christ, 4, 13, 15, 16, 23, 57 , 58, 59 , 60, 62, 65, 75 sq., 91, 108, 
III, 125, 126, 150, 152, 176, 179, 182, 190, 214, 217, 
222, 239, 250, 259, 265, 270, 275, 287. 

The Christ of God, 15, iii, [287]. 

Christ the Lord, 107, 126, 131, 145, 297. 

Christ a King, 65, ill, 112. 

The Christ the King of Israel, 16. 

The Christ the Son of the Living God, 15, 129. 

Christ Jesus, 15, 205 sq., 214, 239, 241, 259. 

Christ Jesus our Saviour, 243. 

Christ Jesus the (or our) Lord, 238, 239, 242. 

Coming One (the), 59, 76, 125, 129, 154, 178, 183, 190 sq. 
Comforter (the). See Advocate, Paraclete. 

David, He that hath the Keys of, 290. 

David, the Root and Offspring of, 292. 

David, the Son of. See Son of David. 

Despot (5£<r7TOT7;?), 265, 269. See Master. 

Door (the), 193. 

307 


3 o 8 The Designations of Our Lord 

Elect (the) of God, 113, 117, [126]. See Chosen One. 
Eternal Life, 271 sq. See Life. 

Faithful (the) and True, 290. 

Faithful (the) and True Witness, 290. 

Faithful Witness (the), 290, 295. 

First (the) and the Last and the Living One, 292, 294. 
Firstborn (the), 280. 

Firstborn (the) of the Dead, 290, 295. 

Glory (the), 263. Cf, Lord of Glory. 

Glory, the Effulgence of God’s, 278. 

God, 177, 181, 187, 199 sq., 218, 238, 244, 250, 254, 268, 271 
sq., 273, 277, 279, 297. 

God only-begotten, 178, 195, 199. 

Our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, 268, 269. 

Our Great God and Saviour, 244, 254, 260. 

The true God and Eternal Life, 271 sq. 

God over all, 238, 250, 254, 258, 260. 

God’s Christ, 257. See The Christ of God. 

God’s Own Son, 218. 

God’s Son Jesus, 270; — Jesus Christ, 270. 

Good Shepherd (the), 193. 

Good Teacher, 8. 

Guide {xaerjyrjTTjD , 67, 1 25. See Master. 

Heir (the) of all things, 280. 

High Priest, 276, 281, 282 sq. See Priest. 

Holy One (the) of God, 14, 20, 113, 126, 158, 191. 

Holy One (the), 217. 

Holy Thing (that), iio. 

- Holy and Righteous One (the), 216. 

Holy and True (He that is), 290. 

House-Master ( ) , 67, 68, 91, 100, 125. See 

Master of the House, Master. 

Image of God (the), 253; — Image (the) of God’s Sub- 
stance, 278. 

Immanuel, 88, 126. 

Jesus, 3, 5, 6, 35, 57, 58, 59, 63, 91, 97 , 98 , 125, 179, 180, 
203, 222, 239, 270, 275, 287. 

Jesus the Son of Joseph, i8o. 

Jesus of Nazareth, 6, 35, 97, 125, 153, 180, 204. 

Jesus the Nazarene, 5, 58, 63, 125, 204. 

Jesus the Galilean, 58, 64, 125. 

Jesus the Prophet from Nazareth of Galilee, 64, 125 


309 


Index of Designations 

Jesus Master, g8, 125. 

Jesus our Lord, 238, 268, 289. 

Jesus the Son of David, 5, 6, 98, 125. 

Jesus the King of the Jews, 58, 64, 125. 

Jesus, the Son of God, 98, 270, 276. 

Jesus, the Son of the Most High God, 5, 6, 125. 

Jesus, surnamed Christ, 58, 61, 64, 125. 

Jesus Christ, 5, 14, 15, 57, 58, 59, 63, 74, 125, 177, 178, 183, 
184 sq., 205, 212, 239, 240, 242, 263, 265, 266, 267, 
270, 276, 287. 

Jesus Christ the Nazarene, 204, 205. 

Jesus Christ, the (or our) Lord, 239, 242, 265. 

Jesus Christ our Saviour, 243. 

Jesus Christ the Righteous, 270. 

Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, 270. 

King (the), 77, 91, 112, 125, 131, 215. 

King of the Jews (the), 13, 17, 77, 112, 125, 189. 

King of Israel (the), 13, 16, 18, 77, 125, 132, 189, 190. 
King of Kings and Lord of Lords, 287, 292. 

Lamb (the) 289, [291]. 

Lamb of God (the), 192. 

Lamb (the) that hath been slain, 289, 291. 

Life (the), 271. 

Life, Eternal, 272 sq. 

Light, 178. 

Light of Man, 193. 

Light of the World, 193. 

Lion (the) that is of the Tribe of Judah, 291, 292. 

Living One (the), 294. 

Lord ( xopio^s ), 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 35, 36, 46, 47, 66, 69 sq., 91, 
97, 99, loi sq., 108, 125, 131, 133, 140 sq., 150, 152, 
154, 156, 179, 180, 181 sq., 203, 207 sq., 209 sq., 222 
sq., 230 sq., 236 sq., 24O, 259, 263, 265, 266, 267, 276, 

277, 287. 

Lord Jesus, 5, 206, 207, 217, 238, 259, 276, 287. 

Lord Christ, 238, 239. 

The Lord’s Christ, 97, 104, 144, 287. 

The (or our) Lord Jesus Christ, 205, 207, 209, 214, 238, 
241, 259, 262, 263, 265, 267, 268. 

Lord and Christ, 212. 

The Lord and Saviour, 268, 269. 

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 268, 269. 


310 


The Designations of Our Lord 

Lord of Lords and King of Kings, 287> 292. 

Lord and God, 181, 187, 200. 

Lord of Glory (the), 223, 264. 

Lord (the) of the House (o xupto<s oura?), ii, cf. Master 
of the House, House-Master. 

Loved us (He that) and loosed us from our sins, 289. 

Man, 180, 218, 246 [288]. — Man Child, 288. 

Master ( i7rc<rrariy9 ) , 3, 99, 100, 125* See Guide ( xad 7 jY 7 jTrj<s ), 
Teacher ( 3 iddffxaXo<s) , Despot {S£(ttt 6 t 7 ]?) , Master of 
the House or House-Master {ohodsaTtdrrj^i). 

Master of the House (oixodeffTTorr)^) . See House-Master. 
Master { 8 e<T 7 : 6 Tr]<s) and Lord Jesus Christ (our), 265* 
Mediator of the New Covenant, 281, cf. 246. 

Messiah, 183, 192, cf. Christ. 

Nazarene (the), 63, 125. 

Only-hegotten, 178, 195. 

Only-begotten Son, i 79 j 188, I 95 » iqS. 

Only-begotten from the Father, 178, I99* 

Only-begotten Son of God, 270. 

Only-begotten God, 178, 195* 

Paraclete, 193. See Advocate. 

Priest, 276, 282 sq. See High Priest. 

Prince ( ), 217* See Author, Captain. 

Prince of Life, 217. 

Prince and Saviour, 217. 

Principle of the Creation of God, 296. 

Prophet, 12, 58, 64, 73, 106, 125, 190, 215, 216. 

Rabbi, 3, 6, 7, 35, 66, 125, 180. 

Rabboni, 7, 125, 180. 

Resurrection (the) and the Life, 193. 

Righteous One (the), 216, 217, 270. 

Root (the) and Offspring of David, 292. 

Ruler (the) of the Kings of the Earth, 291, 292, 295. 

Saviour, 107 sq., 126, 131, I44, 217, 243, 245, 268. 

Jesus Christ our Saviour, 243, 297. 

Christ Jesus our Saviour, 243. 

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 268, 269. 

Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, 244, 254, 260, 268, 
269. 

The Saviour of the World, 270. 

Servant (traT^) of God (the), 84, 126, 215, 216. 

Sent of (^d (the), 186. 


Index of Designations 3 ^^ 

Shepherd, 12, 84, 126, 193, 267, 281. 

The Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls, 267. 

The Great Shepherd of the Sheep, 281. 

Son of Abraham, 58, 126. 

Son of David, 5, 10, 13, I 5 » l 6 , l 8 , 23, 58, 112, 125, 126, 131, 
132, 150, 248. 

Son of Joseph, 180. 

Son (of God), 21, 23, 37 , sq., 91 sq., I17, 126, 128, 130, 

134, 139 sq., 150, 152, 153, 170, 172, 183 sq., 195, 196 
sq., 206, 251 sq., 269, 270, 276, 277 sq. 

Son of God, 14, 19, 21, 42, 78, 91, no, in, 116, 128, 133, 

134, 137 sq., 150, 154, 164, 168, 176, 179, 183, 188, 

190, 195, 212 sq., 215, 218, 246, 248, 250, 258, 260, 

269, 270, 271, 276 sq., 287. 

Son of the Blessed, 14, 16, 19, 126. 

Son of the Living God, 15, 79, 126. 

Son of the Most High, 116, 126. 

Son of the Most High God, 5, 14, 19, 43, no, 116, 126, 

139, 153. 

Son of Man, 4, 14, 15, 16, 24 sq., 38 sq., 51, 54, 84 sq., 91, 
119 sq., 126, 133, 135 sq., 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 166, 
167, 169, 172, 194, 212, [288]. 

Star, the Bright and Morning, 292. 

Stars, He that hath the Seven Spirits of God and the Seven, 
292 ; — He that Holdeth the Seven, 292. 

Sword, He that hath the sharp, two-edged, 292. 

Teacher { 8 iddffxaXo<s)^ 3, 7, 8, 35, 36, 66, 99, 125, 180, 181. 
See Master. 

True God and Eternal Life (the), 271 sq. 

Word (the), 177, 178. 

The Word of Life, 270. 

The Word of God, 288. 


II. Index of Passages of Scripture 
{The superior figures in this Index indicate the number of times a pas~ 


sage is cited on a given page). 



GENESIS 

PAGE 

3:1 


78 

4:1 


289 

5:1 

EXODUS 

15 

20:5 


45 

33:11 

LEVITICUS 

217 

4: 5 


285 

16 


285 

6; 22 


285 

24:11 


219 

16 

NUMBERS 

219 

12: 6-8 

DEUTERONOMY 

217 

6:4 


187 

10: 17 


294 

18: 15 


215 

32: 18 


78 

33:2 

JUDGES 

48 

3:9 


269 

3:15 


269 

6:36 

I SAMUEL 

269 

10: 19 


269 

14:39 

2 SAMUEL 

269 

22: 3 

I KINGS 

269 

2: 24 

2 KINGS 

44 

13:5 

NEHEMIAH 

269 

9:2 


269 



PSALMS 

PAGE 

2 


135, 215 

2: 2 


109, 216 

7 


135 

7:10 


269 

16: 10 


217 

17:7 


269 

29: 1 


224 

40:7 


76 

45:6, 7 


280 

89:27 


135 

106: 21 


269 

no 

46, 47 , 

143, 283 

118:26 


76 

M 

0 

00 

PROVERBS 

88, 91 

3:12 


294 

8 : 22 

ISAIAH 

297 

9:1, 2 


193 

19:20 


269 

35:4 


132 

40: 1 


84, 132 

i-ii 


49 

3 


49 , 143 

42:1 


113, 215 

43:3, II 


269 

44:6 


295 

45:15, 21 


269 

23 

226", 233 

48:16 


294 

49:20 


269 

53 

54 , 

132, 192 

53:7 


291 

60:16 


269 

61 : 1 

131, 

154, 190 

63:8 


269 


Index of Passages of Scripture 313 



JEREMIAH PAGE 


PAGE 

2: 20 

45 

3:11 

40, 76, 130 

14: 8 

269 

14 

128 


EZEKIEL 

17 

78", 79, 80, 84^ 90, 99, 128, 

16:38, 

60, 63 45 


130, 139, 246 

34: II 

14I 

4:3. 6 

78, 128, 129, 134, 139, 154 


DANIEL 

11 

137 

7 

133 

16 

193 

7:9 

294 

18 

61** 

13 

24^ 30, 38", 39. 42, 116, 122, 

5:17 

77 ! 


132, 133. 136", 221, 289, 

6: 24 

70 


295 

7: 21 

69, 70", 71", 129, 141, 142, 

14 

30, 38", 42, 136^ 221 


154 

22-27 132 

7:22 

142 

10:16 

102 

29 

129 


HOSEA 

8:2, 6 

69. 70^ 

2: 19 

12, 45, 124" 

8 

69. 70". 154 

20 

13 

17 

128 

13:4 

269 

19 

67. 69 


ZECHARIAH 

20 

85. 87, 129, 135", 154, 166 

2:5 

265 

21 

69". 70^ 

4: 10 

295 

25 

69 ^ 7 o^ 71“ 

9:9 

189 

27 

79 . 99 

13:7 

12 

29 

78. 129, 139 


MALACHI 

9: 3 

99 

3:1 

76, 217 

6 

61, 87, 129 

4:5, 6 

217 

9 

62 


MATTHEW 

11 

66 

1:1 14, 17, 57®, 58“, 59, 62, 63, 

13 

77 


73, 78, 240, 243, 288 

15 

13. 84 

16 

17, 57. 58", 59^ 6l^ 62", 74, 

27 

18, 69, 78, 129 


240 

28 

69. 70“ 

17 

57. 58, 59. 60®, 61, 62® 74 

36 

13 

18 

14. 17. 57', 58 ^ 59 . 62, 63, 

10: 2 

61“ 


73, 184, 240, 242, 243, 288 

22 

154 

18-25 80 

23 

85, 86 

20 

131 

24 

67". 69, 71, 142" 

21 

57. 58*, 59. 64, 91, 107", 131, 

25 

67'. 69, 71, 91 


144 

33 

129 

23 

63, 88, 90, 132 

34 . 

40 77" 

25 

58. 59 

11:2 

58^ 59^ 6o^ 62^ 65, 74^ 

2:2 

77 . 131 

3 

60, 74, 76", 77, 128, 129, 130, 

4 

59 . 76 


154. 190 

15 

78, 80 

10 

11 

23 

61, 63 

14 

76 

3:3 

II. 63, 73, 91, 143 

19 

85. 87, 129, 135, 154 

9 

112 

25 

70, 82" 


3 H 


The Designations of Our Lord 




PAGE 


PAGE 

n : 25-30 

82 

17:9 

85®, 87, 153 

26 


82 

18 : 10 

76, 85, 217 

27 

77 , 79 , 

81, 82, 83 ) 88, 90, 

12 

85®, 87, 152 


91, 92 : 

, 140, 155, 156, 169, 

15 

69, 70’, 71 


200 


22 

85®, 87" 

12:8 


72, 87, 128, 129 

23 

85, 87, 154 

18 


84, 246 

24 

66 

22 


99 

26 

154 

23 


78, 79 

21 

69, 

24 


99 

25, 26, 27 

70 

32 


85, 87, 129 

31, 32, 34 

70 

35 


154 

19: 16 

66, 67, 69 

38 


66, 69 

28 

86^ 136, 265 

40 


85’, 87, 129, 154 

20: 1 

68 

42 


10 

8 

70 

13:24 


68^ 91 

15 

68, 91 

27 


70 

17 

58 

36 


68, 91 

18 

85®, 87" 

37 


69, 85, 87 

19 

85 

39 


137 

28 

77, 85, 87^ 152 

41 


86", 129, 137 

30 18, 58, 59, 

69, 70®, 71, 78 

43 


87^“ 

31 

18, 70", 71^ 78 

52 


68 

33 

69, 7o^ 71 

54 , 

55 , 56 

99 

21 : 1 

58, 59 

57 


73 

3 7 o‘, 72 

, 102, 141, 210 

14: 1 


58, 59 

4 

10 

28, 

30 

69, 70=* 

5 

10, 72, 77 

33 


79®, 129, 137, 138 

9 

18, 77, 78", 79 

15:2 


59 

10 

99 

22 

18, 

69, 70", 71, 78, 129 

11 12, 

> 58, 64, 73, 99 

25 


70" 

12 

58, 59 

27 


69, 70" 

15 

18, 78" 

16; 13 


85 

30 

70 

14 


73 

33 

68 

16 

15, 21, 

74 , 79 ®, 85, l29^ 

37 

81, 134, 139 


134, 137, 138, 243 

38 

81, 99 

17 


75, 129 

42 

68, 70 

20 


63, 75 , 85 

44 

68 

21 

14, 57 , 58% 59 , 63, 74, 184, 

46 

12, 73 


240 


22: 1 

84, 91, 139 

22 


69, 70'* 

2 

45, 81 

27 

86 

•®, 87, 91, 137, 265 

16, 24, 36 

66, 67 

28 


86, 87 

41-46 

75 

17:4 


69, 70", 71® 

42 

18 

5 ! 

80, 84, 90, 99, 139, 215, 245 

43 

77 , 91, 143 

8 


58- 

43-45 

70, 72 


Index of Passages of Scripture 315 


22:44 

PAGE 
70, 91 

45 

18, 47 

23 : 1-12 

8 

2 

65 

7 

6 

7>io 

67 

8 

67 

10 

67’, 75 

39 

77 

24:5 

75, 185 

23 

85 

27 

85’, 86 

30 

85, 86’, 91, 265 

31 

86’, 87^ 137 

35 

156 

36 

81, 86, 88, 140, 153 

37 

86 

39 

, 85, 86 

42 

70, 72, 141 

43 

67, 68 

44 

72, 85, 86 

45, 46, 48, 

50 70 

25:1 

13", 45, 84, 91 

5, 6, 10 

13, 84 

II 

70’ 

18, 19 

70 

20, 21, 22 

71 

23, 24, 26 

71’ 

31 71, 77, 86, 87, 91, 136, 

137, 

265’ 

32 

13, 208 

34 

71, 77 

37 

70, 71, 91, 142 

40 

71, 77 

44 

70, 71, 91, 142 

26: 2 

85 

3, 14 

61, 62 

18 

67, 210 

22 

66, 69, 70’ 

24 

85 

25 

66, 69 

31 

13, 84 

31-46 

87 

36 

61, 62 

45 

85, 153 

48 

154 



PAGE 

26 : 49 

66, 69 

51 

58, 59 

61 

99 

63 

43, 74, 75, 79’, 85, 137 

64 

75, 85’, 86’, 91, 212 

68 

74 

69, 71 

58’, 64 

75 

58, 59 

27:7-10 

66 

II 

77 

16 

61 

17 17, 

58’, 61*, 62, 64, 75, 185, 


240 


17-22 

63 

22 17, 58®, 61 

’, 62, 64, 75, 185, 

240 

29 

77 

33 

61, 62 

37 

58*, 64, 77, 99 

40 

79, 80, 137 

42 

77 

43 

80, 134, 137 

47 

99 

54 

99, 138 

63 

70’ 

5 

58, 59’ 

6 

72 

9 

58, 59 

18 

51 

18-20 

81, 83, 88, 92, 94 

19 140, 156, 

170’, 1 71, 200, 


267 


MARK 

5, 14, 15. 17, 32» 52, 57. 

58, 150, 152’, 184, 240, 243, 
288 

9’, ii’, 12, 55, 143, 151 
76 
33 
5 

151 

13, 21, 22*, 33, 44, 52, 128, 
134. 139, 150, 152, 246 

37, 128, 137 
9, 33, 51, 52, 128 


3 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

13 

22 


316 

The Designation 

s of Our Lord 



PAGE 



PAGE 

1:24 5, 6 

", 20", 44, 55, 1 14", 128, 

9:7 

13, 21, 22^ 44, 52, 

99 , 134, 

129, 

, 151, 153, 217 


139, 150, 152, 246 


25, 26 

21 

9 

24, 28, 

153, 153 

27 

9 , 33 , 34 , 51, 52, 129 

II 


40" 

34 

20, 44, 128 130, 152 

12 

24, 28^ 

55 , 152" 

35 

40 

17 


8, 71 

38 

39, 40", 52, 128 

25 


52 

41 

32 

31 

24, 28^ 53 , 

151, 153 

2:5 

137 

38 


8', 69 

7 

29, 41, 99 

41 

15, 16, 

23, 185 

8 

209 

10:17, 

20 

8 

10 24, 29, 33, 41, 51, 52, 128, 

33 

24, 28, 53, 151, 152 

136, 

, 151^, 152, 208 

34 


28^ 1 51 

II 

52 

35 


8'-' 

17 

39 , 40, 52 

37 


151, 265 

18 

12 

45 

24, 28^ 39, 40, 52^ 

55 , 135, 

19, 20 

12, 13, 45, 151 


152" 


28 9", 1I^ 24, 29, 33, 41, 51, 52, 

47 

5', 6^ 

, 18, 150 

128' 

136, 150", 152 

48 


18, 150 

3:11 19', 

20, 43, 44, 1 14®, 129, 

49 


18 

134 : 

. 139, 152 

51 

7 , 

9 , 18, 71 

20-30 

34 

52 


18 

27 

51 

II : I 


153 

4: 38 

7, 8^ 69 

3 

9", 10, 12, 52, 

102, 14I, 

41 

33 , 51, 52, 99 , 129 


150, 210 


5:7 5 , 6 , 

19", 44 , 129, 130, 134, 

9 


10, 39 

i 39 » 

150, 152, 153 

10 

10, 

, I8^ 39 

19 

9 

21 


7 , 69 

35 

8 

12 


21, 42 

42 

33 , 51 

2, 

4 

42 

43 

52, 128 

6 

21, 22^ 23, 42, 44, 

. 45 , 52, 

6:2, 3 

99 


139, 150, 178 


4 . 15 

12‘‘ 

7 

42, 99 , 150 

34 

13 

9 


9 

51 

138 

14 


8 

7:15-19 

12 

17 


151 

28 

7 , 9 , 12, 152 

19 


8 

8:28 

12", 151 

25 


152 

29 

15*, 17, 23 150, 151, 152 

32 


8 

30 

15 

35 

15 , 16", i8 , 23, 46, 52, 150, 

31 16, 17, 24, 28, 152, 153 


151 


32 

17 

36 

9®, 10, II", ^2^ 

143, 224 

38 21, 22, 24^ 26, 28, 29 , 30, 

37 

9®, 10, ii^ 12^, 16, 

47 , 143, 

37 , 

41, 136, 137, 151, 168, 


224 



265 i3-’i 


7, 69, 71 20 


9’5 


8, 69 

151 


Index of Passages of Scripture 


317 


PAGE page 


13:21 

15", 23, 152 

1:76 




105®, 

, 106 

26 

24", 28, 30, 41^ 1 5 1, 265 

2:9 





145 

27 

28, 29", 30, 37, 137 

n 

17, 

102, 103, 

104, 

105, 

107, 

32 

2I^ 23", 28, 36, 44, 45, 50, 


112, 130, 131, 

> 14I: 

. 144, 

145, 


140, 152, 153, 156, 171 


298 




35 

9, ii^ 12, 52, 141 

15 





145 

14: 14 

8, 210 

21 





97 

20 

151 

23 




114, 

115 

21 

24, 28", 55, 152 

26 


97 , 

109, 

130, 

145 

27 

12, 13 

30 





107 

36 

21, 22 

32 





193 

41 

24, 28, 152=* 

43 





97 

45 

7 

46 





100 

6i 

15", 16, 19, 24, 44", 150“, 

49 




I18, 

128 


152" 

52 





97 

62 

15, 16", 19, 20, 21, 24“, 28", 

3:4 



104, 

105, 

106 


30, 41, 43 , 44 , 45 , 136, 

6 





107 


137, 150, 151", 152, 168 

8 





112 

63 

16, 20, 43 

12 





100 

67 

5^ 6 

16 




76, 

122 

15:2 

18, 150 

21 





97 

7 

61, 62 

22 


115, 117, 

128, 

139, 

246 

32 

15“, I6^ I8^ 150, 152 

23 





97 

39 

19, 44", 45 , 99 , 134, 138, 

4:1 





97 


152 

3 , 

9 

ii6, 128, 

129, 

139, 

154 

i6;6 

5, 6 

17 





128 

19 

5, 98, 206 

18 




123, 

128 

20 

5 

24 





107 



32 





128 


LUKE 

34 

20, 

98, 99 *, 1 1 3 *, 

II4, 

122, 

1 : 16 

106 


128 

!, 153, 217 




17 

105^ 106 

38 





71 

24 

113 

41 

97 , 

in, 116, 

128, 

129, 

139 

27 

131 

43 



40, 

123*, 

128 

31 

97 , 98 

5:4 





100 

32 

99, no, 112, 116, 117, 130, 

5 


lOO^ 

lOI^ 

142 


131, 139, 144 

8 


97, IOI^ 

102, 

128, 

142=^ 

33 

no, 1 31 

10 





97 

34 

no 

12 





lOI 

35 

78, no, 114, ii6, 117, 130, 

21 





99 


139, 144 

24 



120, 

I 2 I, 

129 

38 

123 

32 





122 

43 

102, 105, 142 

34 , 

35 




123 

45 

103, 144 

6:5 


120, 

I 2 I, 

128, 

129 

47, 68-79 107 

22 



120^ 

129 

69 

112 

40 





100 


The Designations of Our Lord 


318 




PAGE 



PAGE 

6:46 


101, 141, 154 

12:8 


120’, 1 2 1* 

7:6 


lOI, 154 

9 , 

10 

120 

13 


97, 102, 103 

13 


99 

16 


io6, 107“ 

36 


102, 121, 122, 142* 

18 


60 

40 


120 , I 2 I* 

19 76, 

97, 102, 103, 122, 128, 

41 


lOl 

154, 190 


42 


97, 102", 103 

20 


122, 190 

43 


102, 142“ 

31 


102 

13:15 


97, 102, 103 

33 


122 

23, 

25 

lOl 

34 


120, I2I, 129, 154 

33 , 

34 

107 

39 


99", 106 

14: 21 


lOl 

40, 49 


99 

15:2 


99 

8:24 


71, 100 

16:15 


208 

28 98, 99, 

116, 129, 139, 153 

17:5, 6 

97, 102, 103 

41 


97 

13 


98, 100^ 

45 


100 

22, 

24 

120, 121^ 

49 


99 

25 


121 

9:8, 14 


106 

26, 

30 

120, 121 

20 


15, 109, III 

37 


lOl 

22 


120, 121^ 153 

18:6 


97, 102, 103 

26 

120, 

I2I^ 122^ 137, 265 

8 


120, 121^, 122 

33 


71, 100 

18 


99 

36 


97 

31 


120, 121^ 

38 


71, 99 

32 


120 

44 


120, 121 

33 


I 2 I 

48 


123 

37 


97 ^ 98, 99 

49 


100 

38 


98, 112 

50 


97 

39 


112 

58 


120, 121, 129, 154 

40 


97 

59, 61 


101 

41 


lOI 

H 

0 

M 


97, 102, 103 

19: 8 


97, lOI, 102, 103 

3 


192, 290 

10 


107, 120^ 122, 135 

16 


123 

14 


99 

17 


lOI 

31 


102“, 106, I4I^ 210 

21 


118" 

34 


102^, 141 

22 

1 1 8*, 

140, 155, 156, 169 

38 


112 

25 


99 

39 


99 

27 


118 

20: 13 


117, 139, 178 

39 


97, 103 

14 


99 , “7 

40 


101, 102 

41 


103, III, 112 

41 


97, 102, 103 

21:7 


99 

13 : 1 


101 

27 


120, I21^ 122 

30 


120, 121, 154 

36 


120 , I 2 I 

39 


97, 102, 103 

22:11 


99, 210 

45 


99 

21 


99 


M 



Index of Passages 

of Scripture 319 



PAGE 


PAGE 

22:22 


120 , I 2 I I 

:8 

178, 193 

28 


99 

9 

178, 190, 193, 273 

29 


II8® 

II 

76, 190 

31 


102 

14 

177, 178", 195, 197, 199, 225, 

33 » 

38 

lOI 


265 

39 


99 

15 

190 

47 


61, 154 

17 

14, 57 , 177, 183, 184, 243, 

48 


97, 120, 121 


288 

49 


lOI 

18 

178, 195, 197, 199* 

52 


97 

20 

183, 217 

61 


97®, 102®, 103* 

21 

217 

67 


III® 

23 

181 

69 


120, 121® 

25 

183 

70 


116, 137 

27 

76, 190 

23:2 

16, 

17. 99 , III", 112 

29 

192®, 290, 291 

3 


112 

30 

180®, 190 

4 . 14 

99' 

33 

180 

18, 

22, 23, 25 

99 

34 

180, 192, 195 

28 


97 

35 

291 

34 


118 

36 

192® 

35 


III, 113, 114 

38 

7, 69, 180® 

37 


112 

41 

183®, 192 

38 


99 , 112 

42 

100 

39 


HI® 

45 

180, 217 

41 


99 

49 

69, 180, 189, 190, 195® 

42 


98 

51 

24 

43 


209 2 

: II 

225, 265 

46 


118 

13 

245 

24:3 


98, 102®, 206 

16 

196 

7 


120®, 121® 3: 

: 2 

6, 7, 69, 180®, 181 



99 

15 

194 

5 


97 

16 

178, 195, 196, 197, 198 

6 


130 

16-21 179 

19 

12, 97, 98, 

99, 106, 107, 218 

17 

191, 195, 196, 197, 199 

21 


65, 107 

18 

178 

25 


130 

19 

190, 193 

26 


111, 265 

20 

193 

34 


102, 103® 

21 

193, 197 

46 


III® 

26 

180® 

49 


118 

28 

183 


JOHN 29 

i:i 177®, 178®, 182, 199, 240 31, 34 

2 180 35 

178, 193 36 

178, 193, 273 4:1 

40®, 178, 193 5 


12, 13’, 45 » 194 
191 

119. i 95 » 196*, 198 
I 95 ^ 196=* 
179, 181 
61 


320 

The Designations of Our Lord 

ri 


PAGE 



PAGEr 

4 : II, 

15 69, 181 

6:53 


194 ' 

19 

12, 69, 181, 182 

62 


194) 

21, 

22 196 

65 


196'! 

25 

183", 190" 

68 

69, 

I8I, 217! 

26 

183 

69 

20", 1 1 3, 

1 14, I9IJ 

29 

180", 183, 193 

7: 5 


263^ 

31 

69, 180 

15 


i 8 oj 

34 

191 

16, 18 


I9I J 

42 

107, 180, 193 

25 


1801 

44 

182 

26 


180, 1831 

49 

69, 181 

27 


183, I90J 

5 = 2 

61 

28, 29 


19I) 

7 

69, 181 

31 

180, 

, 183, I90I 

12 

180 

33 


191 ; 

17 

196 

35 


180 j 

i 8 

187, 196, 197, 198 

40 

12, 180, 

182, 217!'' 

19 

195', 196', 197 

41 

180, 183^, 

193, 217 £ 

20, 

21, 22 195, 196^ 197 

42 


183 1 

23 

191, I95^ 196* 

46, 51 


180^ i 

24 

191 

52 


182 ) 

27 

194, 196 

8 : 12 


193" 3 

30 

191 

14-16 


191 ; 

36, 

37 191, 196 

16, 18 


191, 196 

43 

190, 196 

19 

119, 

187, 196"! 

44 

187 

26 


191 f 

45 

196 

27 


196 I 

6 : 14 

12, 76, 180, 182, 190^ 217 

28 


195, 196 I 

15 

w 

6 ^ 

00 

M 

29 


191 j 

23 

179, I8I 

36 


195, 196! 

25 

180 

38 


196" 

27 

20, 192, 194", 196 

40 


180 

29 

19I 

42 


40^ 191“ 

32 

196 

49 , 54 


196 

33 

193 

9:2 


69, 180 

34 

69, 181 

4 


191 

35 

193 

5 


193 

37 

196 

II, 16 


180" 

38, 

39 191 

17 


12, 182 

40 

195, 196, 197 

22 


183 

41 

193 

24 


180* 

42 

180 

33 


180 

44 

191, 196 

35 


195^ 196 

45 

196 

36, 38 


69, 181 

46 

1 1 9, 180, 196^ 

39 


190 

49 

193 

10: 2 


13, 193 

50, 

52 180 

7 , 9 


193 


Index of Passages of Scripture 


321 


PAGE 


10: 10 


190 

II, 

14 

193 

15 


119, 187, 196* 

16 


193 

17, 

18 

196 

24 


183 

25, 

29 

196 

30 

119, 187, 196, 197, 198, 200 

32 


196 

33 

• 

180, 196 

36 

20^ 21 

, 114", 134, 191, 192, 


195', 

196^ 

37 


196 

38 


196^ 197, 198, 200 

11 ; 2 


179, 181 

3 


69, 181 

4 


21, 195", 196 

8 


69, 180 

9 » 

10 

193 

12 


69, 181 

16 


61 

21 


69, 181 

25, 


193, 273 

27 

69, 

181, 183, 190, 195* 

28 


180, 181 

32, 

34 

69, 181 

37 


180" 

39 


69, i8i 

42 


191 

47 , 

50 

180 

54 


61 

12: 13 


181, 189, 190 

14 


10 

15 


10, 189, 190 

21 


70, 1 81 

23 


194 

26, 

27, 28 

196 

34 


24, 183, 194 

35 , 

36 

193 

38 


181 

44 , 

45 

191 

46, 

47 

191", 193 

49 


191, 196 

50 


196 

13:1, 3 


196 

6, 9 


69, 181 


PAGE 

13:13 180^181^210,224 


13-16 


69 

14 


180^, 181^ 

16 


180 

20 


40, 1 91 

25 


69, 181 

31 


194 

36 


69, 181 

37 


181 

: 2 


196 

5 


69, 181 

6 


196, 273 

7 


187, 196 

8 


69, 181 

9 119, 187, 196, 197, 198, 200, 
225 

10, II, 12 


196 

13 


195, 196" 

16 


193, 196 

20, 21 


196 

22 


69, 181 

23 


196 

24 


191, 196 

26 


196 

28 

196, 

197", 198 

31 


196“ 

I, 8, 9, 10 


196 

II 


7 

15 


180, 196 

16 


196 

20 


180 

21 


191 

22 


190 

24, 26, 28 


196 

3 


196 

5 


191 

10 


196 

15 


119, 196 

17, 23, 25, 

26, 27 

196 

28 


191, 196" 

32 


196 

I 

184, 

195, 196" 

2 

184, 

185, 197 

3 14, 177, 

179, 183^ 

184, 191, 


240, 243", 273 


196, 225, 265 


5 


4 

322 \The Designations of Our Lord 




PAGE 


PAGE 

17:6 


II9 

1:7 

213 * 

8 


191" 


14, 16 204 

10 


II9 

21 

98, 209, 210 

II 


196 

24 

207^ 208“, 21 1 

18 


191 

2: 20 

210, 226 

21 


191, 196 

21 

210, 219 

22 


265 

22 

204, 218 

23 


191 

22-36 212 

24 


196, 265 

25 

226 

25 


191, 196 

27 

216, 217 

18:5, 7 


180 

30 

216 

II 


196 

31 

210 

14. 17, 29, 

30 

180 

32 

204, 214"* 

33 


189 

33 

210, 213 

37 


189®, 190 

34 

209, 210, 211 

39 


189 

36 

104, 109^ 204, 209, 210^ 

19:3 


189 


211^ 212, 214 

5 


180 

38 

14, 186, 205, 208, 219 

7 


195 

47 

209, 21 1 

12 


189 

3:2 

61, 63 

13 


61, 62 

3 

217 

15 


189 

6 

14, i86, 204, 205, 219^ 

17 


62 

13 

204, 212, 215 

19 


180, 189 

14 

215, 216*, 217 

21 


189 

15 

210, 217, 225, 282 

20:2, 13 


181 

16 

210, 219 

15 


70, 181 

18 

214, 216 

16 


7, 180* 

20 

14, 204, 205, 206®, 214, 242, 

17 


196 


243 

18 


181 

21-26 216 

20 


179, i8i 

22 

12, 215, 216, 217 

21 


191", 196 

23 

216 

24 


61 

26 

212, 215^ 216 

25 


i8i 

4:2 

204 

28 


181, 187, 200 

7 

219 

29 


200 

8-12 212 

31 176, 179, 

183, 189, 195", 

10 

14, 186, 204, 205, 219^ 

240 



12 

210, 219 

121:2 


61 

13 

204 

7, 12 


179, 181 

17 

219 

15 


181, 192, 290* 

i8 

204^, 219 

20, 21 


181 

19, 

24-30 208 


ACTS 

25-27 216 



203, 204, 207 

26 

109 

4 


213" 

27 

204“, 215, 216“ 

6 


210 

28 

204’, 215, 216, 319 


Index of Passages of Scripture 323 





PAGE 


PAGE 

4:33 


98, 

206, 209, 210 

10: 36 

14, 205, 210^ 211“ 

5:14 



209, 21 1 

38 

204'* 

28 



219 

42 

217, 2i8, 250 

29-32 


212 

43 

208, 218, 219 

30 



204 

48 

14, 205, 210, 219 

31 


107, 

208, 217, 282 

11 : 16 

209, 210 

40 



204^ 219 

17 14, 98, 205 , 207, 209, 210 

41 



219* 

20 

98, 206, 209, 210 

42 

14. 

204, 205, 

206, 214, 242 

21 

209^ 211^ 

6:4 



61 

23 

209, 211 

14 



204^ 

24 

211 

7:37 



12, 17 

26 

63 

52 



212, 216, 217 

12:11, 17 

209 

55 



204 

13:2, 10, II, 12 209, 21 1 

56 



212, 218 

16-41 

212 

59 


98, 207^ 

208, 209, 210 

23 

107, 204, 217 

60 


207^ 208 , 210 

24 

217 

8:5 



212, 214 

33 

204, 213, 218 

12 


14. 

186, 205, 219 

35 

216, 217 

16 


98, 206 

, 209, 210, 219 

44, 47, 48 21 1 

22, 

24 


209 

49 

209, 211 

25 



209, 21 1 

14:3 

209, 211 

32 



192, 240 

10 

210 

35 



204 

23 

209, 21 1 

37 



14, 186 

15:8 

208 

39 



2 II 

II 

207, 209, 210 

9: 1 



209, 210 

14, 17 

219 

5 



204“, 207, 2I0‘‘‘ 

26 14 

, 98, 205^ 207, 209, 210, 

6 



210“ 


219 

10 



207, 209, 210^ 

35 » 36 

209, 211 

II 



209, 210 

40 

209 

13 



207, 210 

16: 10 

210 

14 



219 

14 

209, 211 

15 



209, 210, 219 

15 

211 

16 



219 

18 

14, 205, 219 

17 



204, 209, 210 

31 

98, 207, 209, 210, 217 

20 


204", 

212, 213, 215 

32 

209, 211 

21 



219 

17:3 

14’, 204, 205, 206, 214 

22 



213, 214 

7, 18 

204 

27 


204^ 

209, 210, 219 

31 

21 8^ 250 

28 



210 

18: 5 

14, 204, 205, 206, 214 

29 



209 

8, 9 

209, 21 1 

31 



209, 21 1 

25 

204, 209, 210, 211 

34 



205 

28 

14, 204, 205, 206, 214 

35 » 

42 


209, 21 1 

19:4 

204 

10: 34-42 


210 

5 

98, 206, 209, 210, 219 


324 


The Designations of Our Lord 




PAGE 


PAGE 

19 : lo 


2 II 

5:19 

247 

13 

98, 

204^ 206, 209, 210, 219 

21 

232 

15 


204 

6:4 

241, 253 

17 


98, 206, 209, 210, 219 

8, 9 

241 

20 


209, 21 1 

23 

239 

20:19 


209, 21 1 

7:4 

45 

21 

98. 

205’, 207, 209, 210, 217 

8:3 225, 

233, 250, 251=^ 

24 


98, 207, 209, 210, 217 

9, 10 

241 

28 


210, 218^, 245, 248 

15 

253 

31 


14 

17 

241 

35 


98, 207, 209, 210, 217 

29 

251 

21 : 13 

98, 

, 207, 209, 210, 217, 219 

32 

250, 251" 

14 


21 1 

34 

232 

N 

00 


204®, 207, 210 

39 

239 

10 


207, 2 1 o'* 

9:1 

241 

14 


216, 217 

5 21 1, 236’, 240, 248, 250, 254, 

16 


208, 210, 219 

255. 259 


19 


207, 210 

20 

251 

23 : II 


209, 210 

10:4 

241 

24:24 


14, 205, 2o6^ 242 

6, 7 

240, 241 

25; 19 


204 

9 

225, 226^ 

26:9 


204', 219 

12 223, 227, 231, 232 

10 


210 

13 

226 , 231, 232 

15 


204, 207, 209, 210 

17 

241 

17 


210 

II : I, 2, 3, 8 

227 

23 


214, 217 

12: 5 

241 

28: 23 


204 

19 

227 

31 

14, 

98, 205^ 207, 209, 210 

14:4 

227 




6 

233 



ROMANS 

9 

224, 231, 241 

1 : z 


242, 288 

II 

226", 227, 233 

3 


248, 25I^ 259 

15 

241 

4 223, 225", 248, 249 , 251 , 259 

15:6 

233, 252 

7 


227, 253 

8, 18, 20 

241 

9 


251 

38 

230^ 

2: 16 


232 

16:5, 7, 9, 10 

241 

3 : 22 


232 

18 

239 

25 


233 

27 

235 

30 


235 

1 CORINTHIANS 

5:1 


232 

1 : 2 

232 

6, 8 


241 

3 

227, 252, 253 

8-10 


252 

8 

233 

10 


233» 251, 252-* 

9 

251 

XI 


232, 252 

12, 17, 23, 24 

241 

15 


247' 

31 

226^ 232 

*7 


232 

2:8 223, 224, 231, 

236, 248, 265 


Index of Passages of Scripture 


325 






PAGE 


PAGE 

2: 10 




241 

3:3, 14 

241 

x6 




232 

16 

226^ 232 

3:1 




241 

4:4 225, 

250,^ 254‘‘ 

5 




227 

5 225, 

226“, 239 

23 



233, 

241* 

6 

241 

4: I, 10, 15 



241 

5:10 

233 

19 




227 

16 

240, 241 

5*7 




241 

17 

241 

6:15 




241 

18 

233, 241 

7: 17 




227 

19, 20 

241 

22 




241 

6: 15 

241 

8:4 



188, 

235 

8:9 225, 233, 

250, 259 

4-6 




228 

21 

232 

5 



187, 

, 227 

10: 7 

241= 

6 223, 

227, 228, 

229, 

232, 

253 

17 

226, 232 

11, 12 




241 

n : 2 

45 

9: 21 




241 

3, 10, 13, 23 

241 

10: 9 




226'' 

31 

233 

16, 22 




232 

12:2, 10, 19 

241 

26 




226 

13:13 

267 

31 




233 

14 170, 

188, 230'* 

11 : 1 




241 



3 




233 

GALATIANS 


20 




288 

I : I 

288 

26 



224, 

239 

3 

227, 253 

27 




224 

4 

253 

31 




252 

6, 10 

241 

12:3 


226^, 

227, 

239 

16 

251^ 

4-6 



230, 

267 

22 

241 

27 




241 

2: 16 

241 

15:3. 12, 

13, 14, 16 



241 

17 

240, 241" 

17, 18 

, 19, 20 



241 

20 

24I^ 251" 

21 




247 

21 

241 

23 




241 

3: 13, 16 

241 

24 




253 

20 

235 

27 




233 

24, 27, 29 

241 

28 


233 

251, 

253" 

4:4 225, 

25I^ 252 

31 




239 

4-6 

253 

45 , 47 , 48, 49 



247 

6 

251, 253" 






19 

241 


a CORINTHIANS 



5:1, 2, 4 

241 

z : 2 




227 



3 



233, 

253 

EPHESIANS 


19 




251 

1 : 2 

227, 253 

21 




241 

3 222, 234, 

241, 252 

2:10, 15, 

17 



241 

5 

233 


326 


The Designal ions of Our Lord 


32 


1 : 6 

17 

20 

2:11 

12 

18 
3 -I 

II 

14 

4:1 

4 

4-6 

5 

6 

8, 10 

13 

15) 

5: 5 
9 

20 

21 
28 
32 

6:4 
9 

23 


1 : 2 
10, 13, 
20, 21, 
2: 1 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

16, 30 
3:8 
9 

20 

21 
4: 20 


PHILIPPIANS 

17, 18 
23, 29 


1 : 2 
3 » 


12 


PAGE 



PAGE 


245 

1:13 


246, 25I^ 253" 

234, 

253 

15 


254'. 297 


233 

15-19 

250 


62 

16, 

17 

224 


241 

19 


233 


253 

27. 

28 

241 


242 

2:2, 5 


241 

239, 

242 

6 


239, 242 


253 

8 


241 


231 

9 


236 


230 

10 


233 


267 

19 


231 


227 

20 


241 

233, 

253 

3:11 


241 


232 

17 


253 

250, 

251' 

24 


226, 239 


241 

4:1 


231 


245 

II 


61 


233 




244, 

253 


I 

THESSALONIANS 


241 

I : I 


227, 230, 243, 253 


13 

3 


253 


241 

9 


187 


22 6'“* 

10 


240, 251“ 


231 

2: 6 


241 

227, 

253 

14 


206, 243 



3:1 


243 

227, 

253 

II 


227, 253 


241 

13 


233. 253 


241 

4:6 


232 


241 

16 


241 

, 248, 

251 

5:2 


233 

235 » 

248 

9 


243 


248 

18 


206, 243 

224', 

250 

23, 

28 

243 

» 232, 

233 




226, 

253 


2 

THESSALONIANS 


241 

I : I 


227, 253 

239, 

241 

2 


227, 230, 253" 


241 

7 


233 


244 

8 


232 

225, 

233 

9 


226^ 232'“ 


253 

10 


233' 



12 


227, 232, 245 

241, 

253 

2:2 


233 


253 

16 


253 


COLOSSIANS 


Index of Passages of Scripture 327 


1: 1 

I TIMOTHY PAGE 

244, 245 

2 

227, 253 

2:3 

244, 245 

5 

232, 235, 247" 

3 : 16 

265 

4: 10 

244 

1 : 2 

2 TIMOTHY 

227, 253 

8 

269 

10 

244 

2: 19 

226=* 

22 

232 

4: 14 

226=^ 

18 

232 

1:3 

TITUS 

244, 245 

4 

227, 244, 245, 253 

2: 10 

244 

13 

244. 245", 25 5^ 265 

3:4 

244, 245 

6 

23 3» 244, 245 

3 

PHILEMON 

253 

6, 8, 20 

241 

1 : 2 

HEBREWS 

277, 278, 279, 281 

3 

265 

4 

37 , 43 

5 

277^ 280 

6 

281 

8 

277, 278 

10 

277“, 278 

2:2 

278 

3 

277' 

8 

37 

9 

265, 277 

10 

282^ 

17 

277, 283 

3:1 

277^ 282, 283 

6 

43, 276, 277 

14 

276 

4: 12 

178 

14 

277', 283 

15 

277, 283 



PAGE 

5:5 

276, 277 

6 

277, 283 

7 

268 

8 

277 

9 

288=* 

10 

277, 283'" 

6:1 

276 

3 

277 

20 277", 

282^ 283 

7:3, 11 

277^ 283 

14 

277" 

15, 17, 21 

277, 283 

22 

277 

26 

283 

28 

277 

8: 1, 4 

277, 283 

6 

282 

9:11 276, 

277, 283 

14 

276 

15 

282 

24, 28 

276 

10: 10 

277* 

21 

277, 283 

29 

277 

11:17 

197 

26 

276 

12: 2 

277, 282" 

14 

278 

24 

277, 28a 

13:8, 12 

277 

20 

277®, 283 

21 

277, 281 

JAMES 


I : I 

264® 

2 : 1 

264“ 

5:7, 8 

264® 

10, II 

265 

14, 15 

264® 

1 PETER 


I : I 

267, 288 

2 

267 

3 

267, 268 

5 

273 

7 , II, 13 

267 

19 192, 

267, 290 

2:3, 5, 13, 21, 25 

267 


328 


The Designations of Our Lord 



PAGE 


PACE 

3:15 

226, 267'* 

5:13 

271, 274 

16, i8, 21 267 

15 

272 

4:1, 11, 14 

267 

18 

271 

13 

265, 267 

20 

20, 217, 271, 272®, 273 

5:1, lo, 14 

267 






2 JOHN 


2 PETER 

3 

27I^ 238 

I : X 

245, 269, 270, 288 

7 , 9 

271 

2, 8 

269^ 270 


3 JOHN 

II 

245, 269^ 270* 

7 

219', 274 

14, 16 

269“ 


JUDE 

17 

270 

I 

263, 264, 288 

2: 1 

245, 270 

4 

245, 266, 270 

20 

245, 269^ 270" 

17, 21, 25 266 

3:3 

245, 269 



3 

268 


THE APOCALYPSE 

8, 9, 10 

268^ 269^ 

I ; I 

288" 

12 

265, 269^ 

4 

296 

15 

268^ 269“ 

5 

288*, 290, 291®, 293"* 

18 

245, 269^ 270" 

6 

288, 297 



7 

289, 292 


I JOHN 

8 

294, 295 

1 : 1 

178, 271 

9, 10 

288 

2 

273 

13 

289* 

3 

271, 272^ 274, 288 

14 

289, 295* 

7 

271, 272 

17 

295, 297 

2: 1 

271* 

18 

293’, 294’, 295", 296 

8 

273 

2: X 

288, 293 

12 

274 

8 

293, 295, 297 

20 

20, 217 

12 

288, 293 

22 

271* 

18 

288, 293*, 295, 297 

3:8 

271 

23 

294', 295 

II, 12 

272 

27 

288, 297 

23 

271, 272, 274 

3:1 

293 

4:2, 3 

271 

2 

288 

9 

178, 197, 271, 272, 274 

5 

288, 297 

10 

271, 272 

7 

20, 217, 288, 292, 293, 294 

10-14 

272 

12 

288 

13 

271 

14 

291, 297* 

14, 15 

271*, 272 

19 

295 

5:1 

271* 

21 

288, 297 

5 

271, 272" 

4:3 

296 

6 

271 

II 

269 

8 

272 

5:4 

292 

9, 10, II 

271 

5 

288, 293 

12 

271*, 272 

6 

290, 295 



Index of Passages of Scripture 

329 


PAGE 


PAGE 

5:8, 9 , 12 

290 

17 : 14 288, 290, 

291, 293, 294 

13 

293, 294 

19:7 

13, 45, 290 

6: 1, i6 

290 

9 

290 

7:9 

290 

10 

288* 

10 

244, 290 

II 

291 

I 4 » 17 

290 

12 

295 

ii:i5 

269, 288^ 294 

13 

178, 289 

12:5 

289 

x6 

288, 293 

10 

288" 

20:4 

00 

00 

IX 

290 

6 

288*, 294 

13 

289 

21:2 

45 

17 

288 

6 

295 

13:8, 12 

290 

9 

45, 290 

14: 10 

290 

14, 22, 27 

290 

12, 13 

288 

22:1, 3 

290, 294 

14 

289' 

16 

288, 293 

15:3 

290 

20 

288 

17:6 

288 

21 

00 

00 


III. Index of Authors Cited 


{The superior figures in this Index indicate the number of times an 
author is quoted on a given page) 


Abbott, Ezra, 255 
Abbott, E. A., 149, 168 
Africanus, Julius, 266 
Alexander, J. A., 8, 10, 47, 60, 65, 
208 

Allen, W. C., 43, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 

90, 113, 171 
Ambrose, 105 

Bacon, B. W., 295 
Barde, 206, 208, 219 
Bartlet, 55 
Bassett, 265 

Baumgarten-Crusius, 40, 208 
Baur, 223 
Beda, 105 

Bengel, 40, 105, no, 143, 208, 265 
Berlin Aegypt. Urkunden {The)j 
70 

Beyschlag, 234, 235 
Bigg, 266, 267, 268*, 270^ 

Bisping, 105, 106, 208 
Blass, 59®, 67, 106, 208, 219 
Bleek, 108, 110, 281 
Blom, A. H., 206^, 208'*, 212, 213, 
215, 216“ 

Bornemann-Meyer, 240 
Bousset, 26, 41, 113, 126, 134, 158, 
163, 164, 165, 166®, 167, 174, 
193, 256^ 257, 259, 287, 295 
Briggs, 41, 42 
Bristow, J. B., 115 
Bruce, 172 
Burkitt, 153 
Castalio, 105 

Charles, 13, 42", 55^ 56, 84, 113, 
126, 247 

330 


Chase, F. H., 172, 219 
Cheyne, 24 
Clemens, J. S., 296 
Clementine Homilies, 270 
Conybeare, 171^ 173, 219 
Cremer, 171, 173, 282 

Dale, R. W., i 

Dalman, 7^, 8, ii*, i6^ 17*, 18, 19^ 
23, 26", 27, 37, 38*, 39“, 41*, 46, 
47", 55, 61, 65, efy 88, loi, 
104", 129, I33^ 134, 135, 166, 
168, 169" 

Daplyn, E., 84, 247 
Davidson, A. B., 49^, 276^ 279, 280, 
281, 283, 285, 293, 296 
Delitzsch, 6, 16, 47^, 67, 280, 281 
Denney, 283, 285 
De Wette, 109^, 208, 219, 289^ 
Drummond, R. B., 126, 255 
Diisterdieck, 296 
Dwight, 255 

Ebrard, 186 
Edersheim, 76^ 

Edwards, T. C., 224, 235 
Encyclopedia Biblica, 168 
Eusebius, 172, 173, 203, 266 
Euthymius Zigabenus, 40, 105 
Evans, 235 
Ewald, 108 

Feine, Paul, 206, 223, 226, 232, 234, 
240^ 242, 243^ 

Felton, 208 
Fritzsche, 16, 62 

Fritzsche, Volkmar, 24, 166, 170 


Index of Names 


331 


Gabler, 211 

Gebhardt, 287, 289, 290, 291, 295, 
296 

Geden and Moulton, 58 

Gess, 124, 251 

Giesebrecht, 219 

Gloag, 206, 208, 219 

Godet, 102, no, 117, 119, 124’, 186 

Goebel, Siegfried, 24 

Gray, G. B., 219 

Gressman, Hugo, 24 

Grosart, A. B., 192, 290 

Grotius, 40 

Gwatkin, 302 

Hackett, 208, 219 

Hahn, 2o^ 105, 108, 109, no, 112, 
117, 119 

Harnack, 153^ 170, 171^ 202^, 203 ^ 
211, 237, 241" 

Hase, 119 

Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, 
12, 63, 172, 247 

Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and 
the Gospels, 217 
Haupt, 106 
Hausleiter, 240 
Hawkins, 16 
Heinrici-Meyer, 224, 239 
Hellwag, 136, 137 
Hengstenberg, 289^ 

Herner, Sven, 9, n, 49, 102, 105, 
208^, 209, 210, 227, 264^ 268, 
277 

Hoekstra, 291, 295 
Hofmann, 108, 119, 280 
Holtzmann, 5, 6, lo^ n, 14, 15, 18, 
20, 40, 59, 67^ io8^ 109, no, 
112, 114, 166, 171, 286, 287, 
289, 291 

Holtzmann, O., 302 
Hort, 82, 172, 218, 267, 268 

Irenaeus, 237 
Issel, Ernst, 114 

Julicher, 259 


Kalthoff, Albert, 163, 164, 165 
Keil, 16, 20, 62, 108, 113 
Keim, 6, 119, 167 
Knowling, R. J., 116, 220, 221, 223, 
251* 

Kostlin, 295 
Kiibel, 61 
Kiinoel, 106^ 

Kurtz, 281 

Lange, 40 
Lechler, 208 
Lightfoot, 249, 270 
Loisy, Abbe, 170 
Lowrie, 281 
Liinemann, 281 
Lutgert, 145 
Luthardt, 186 
Luther, 109 

MacFarland, Charles S., 159 
Maier, 281 
Maldonatus, 40 
Martineau, 37, 169 
Mason, A. J., 23 
Massie, 296 

Mathews, Shailer, 21®, 131^ 133, 
160, 168^, 169, 175 
Mayor, 263, 264, 265, 266^ 270 
Meyer, 6, 10, 16, 18, 19, 23®, 40^, 
43, 47, 57, 61, 99, 106, 107, 
108^, 109, no, 178, 187, 208, 
211, 219", 225", 246, 251, 287 
Moulton, J. H., 59 
Moulton and Geden, 58 
Moulton-Winer, 59^ 

Nestle, 223 
Nosgen, 61, 108, 208 

Oehler, 48 
Olshausen, 106, 208 

Palmer, R., 287 
Paulus, io8^ 109 
Pfleiderer, 162, 165 


332 The Designations of Our Lord 


Plummer, A., 66, 98, 99, 100, 102, 
io6^ 107, ii6®, 118, II9^ 171, 
211 

Poly carp, Martyrdom of, 270 
Porter, T. C., 297 
Preuschen, 171 

Rackham, 206, 208 
Rashdall, 219 
Renan, 302 
Rendall, 208 

Riehm, 276, 278®, 279®, 280“ 281 
Riggenbach, E., 171, 173 
Robinson, J. Armitage, 13®, 22®, 80, 
84, 1 1 5, 222, 223, 247, 250 
Ross, A. E., 296 
Rushbrooke, W. G., 149 

Salkinson, 67 
Salmond, 42 

Sanday, 82, 119, 133, 169, 172, 174, 
195, 198, 223, 229, 230, 240®, 
242, 249 

Sanders, Frank K., 159 
Schaeder, Erich, 145 
Schanz, 105, 106 
Schegg, 105 
Schenkel, 18, 167 
Schlatter, 145, 171, 173 
Schmidt, N., 24, 37, 160, 166, 169, 
170 

Schmidt, Richard, 234, 236 
Schmiedel, 36, 160, 162, 168, 170, 
171, 174 

Schmiedel-Winer, 59, 240, 245 
Schmiedel, O., 146 
Schoettgen, 7 
Schurer, 113, 126 
Schwartzkopff, 166 
Smith, W. B., 163, 165 
Somerville, D., 47®, 227, 228, 234 
Spitta, 270® 

Stanton, 41®, 42, 47, 48, 55, 67, 107, 
133, 136, 167, 173, 2i7» 222, 
285, 297, 301 
Stead, F. Herbert, 243 
Steck, 259 
Stier, 186 
Strauss, i8 


Streatfeild, G. S., 40 , 46, loi 
Stuart, Moses, 211 
Suetonius, 65 

Swete, 6, 7®, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 
23 » 40 » 43 » 47 i 52, 244, 285, 
290, 294® 

Talmud, Babylonian, 17 
Tertullian, 237 
Thayer-Grimm, 76 
Tillman, Fritz, 24, 31. 

Trench, 69 

van Manen, 259 
van Oosterzee, 208 
Vernes, 167 
Volz, 43 

von Soden, 151, 153®, 240, 270® 
Vos, G., 282, 283, 285 

Weinel, 221, 259 

Weiss-Meyer, 8, 9, 10, 6i, 65, 106, 
io8\ 109, no, H2®, 117, 119, 
123®, 169, 227, 241, 251, 255, 

273 

Weiss, J., 41 
Weisse, 167 

Wellhausen, 6, 7, 10®, 15, 18, 20®, 
22, 24, 43, 44, 53, 54^ 60, 66, 
67, loo, 153 

Wendt-Meyer, 206, 208, 219 
Wernle, 220, 221®, 260 
Westcott, 6, 7, 20, 76, 178, 182, 184, 
186, 191, 271®, 273, 274® 
Westcott-Hort, 218, 240 
Wettstein, 67, 270 
Winer, 59, 21 1, 240, 245, 246 
Wittichen, 167 
Woolsey, T. D., 69, 104 
Wrede, 158, 165, 175, 221®, 260 
Wiinsche, 67 

Zahn, 24®, 43, 62, 69, 70®, 76, 78®, 
79®, 80®, 8i®, 82, 172 
Zeller, 23, 167 

Zigabenus, Euthymius, 40, 105 
Ziemssen, Reinhold, 132, 140, 141, 
144 


•V 









Date Due 


ACULTY 












: IV 
















^ii;pi.|..y»WI«»i 

1^^ 















7 "T*^ 

\ ■ 




JUN 3 0 j 










'/?nt 















f